Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELECTION

Ordered,
That Sir Fergus Montgomery be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Sir Irvine Patnick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Local Government Election

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from (a) political parties and (b) other bodies about the (i) arrangements and (ii) timing of the local government election in Northern Ireland. [11967]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have received general representations about personation at elections in Northern Ireland; otherwise none.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State understand that the good folk of Northern Ireland want, along with the rest of us, a general election so that they can say no to the privatisation of the Post Office and can elect a Government who will reduce the hospital waiting list and get youngsters back to work and on to proper training schemes? Is there not, however, a problem that the local government elections in Northern Ireland are scheduled for 21 May? It would be absurd for the general election to run in tandem with or to overlap those elections. Would it not be far better either to call a general election now, or to pass legislation that brought forward the local government elections in Northern Ireland to 1 May?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the people of Northern Ireland feel so strongly about the numerous matters with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, it is interesting that I have not received a single representation about them, which suggests that perhaps his research is not as profound as it usually is. As to moving the election date, it would be better to stay with the legislation that we have, but to do all in our power to make it work properly.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Secretary of State aware that many potential candidates are not particularly

interested in the local government elections or in any date for them because of the lack of power in local government? Will he take administrative action to keep power away from unelected quangos and give it back to elected representatives?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am always ready, of course, to consider any particulars that are put to me, but part of the purpose of the talks process in which we are so laboriously engaged is to come through to an agreed political settlement that is based on consent, which will undoubtedly find a better way of governing Northern Ireland than exists under direct rule. That applies in particular to local government.

Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State will confirm that he has had discussions with my party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, with regard to future elections, including the forthcoming local government and general elections. I refer to serious electoral fraud, where proven irregularities with regard to registration and vote stealing are well known, and where thousands of votes are stolen at each election. The biggest problem—the Secretary of State referred to it—is personation. Will he make a statement on the matter, bearing in mind that medical cards and social security documents are in no way proof of identity?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I pay tribute to the assiduity with which the hon. Gentleman has pursued his anxieties with me and with the chief electoral officer about personation and other frauds. It is true that he has seen me on a number of occasions. I have met other representatives of his party, who have also met the chief electoral officer. My officials are considering ways of combating alleged instances of fraud, some of which I am certain do exist. Intimidation plays a big part in them. We can have the legislation, but, for it to work, people have to be free of intimidation, and we all know who is doing the intimidating.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the majority of people throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are concerned most of all about the integrity of that United Kingdom, and that they would be well advised to have regard to that fact when deciding who to vote for in any election, at any time?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is true that a large majority of people living in Northern Ireland, let alone throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, strongly support the maintenance of the Union, which, as the Prime Minister has frequently said and as I am glad to endorse, gives added strength to each of the regions comprising the United Kingdom. As far as I can see, there is no prospect of people changing their minds about that in what people are pleased to call the foreseeable future.

Mr. Dowd: May I press the Secretary of State on the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) in the light of the impending local elections and, in particular, the general election? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that all actions have been taken, not just against personation but to protect the integrity and accuracy of the register? If he is not satisfied


will he say what further action the Government intend to take to minimise the opportunities for the profound abuse of the democratic process that has occurred in the recent past?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the register. Northern Ireland has a peculiar advantage in that, largely, the registration process depends not upon postal returns but upon personal canvassing. As a consequence, it is widely thought that the register is more accurate than registers in many areas of Great Britain. The computer forms are collected by canvassers from each household. Of course, when people move, there are opportunities for personation. I have taken care to see that each and every one of the representations in this regard by hon. Members has been brought to the attention of the chief electoral officer. I repeat what I have said in the past: that intimidation and profoundly undemocratic attitudes on the part of Sinn Fein and particular others are responsible for electoral fraud.

11-plus System

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Government's policy with respect to the province's 11-plus system of education. [11968]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Most areas of Northern Ireland have a selective system of secondary education. I have no plans to change the present system, which serves Northern Ireland well.

Mr. Brown: In view of that answer, does my hon. Friend agree that Northern Ireland's selective system of education delivers one of the highest qualities of education in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that there is a case for considering selection throughout the kingdom? Is he aware that I went to a secondary modern school, having failed my 11-plus, and that I was able to get to university after taking my O and A-levels at that secondary modern?

Mr. Ancram: As my hon. Friend knows and is right to remind us, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already made it clear that our intention as a party and Government is to introduce increased selection in the rest of the United Kingdom. As Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, I can say that we have every right to be proud of the education system there which, as we know from yesterday's figures, produces at the top end of the GCSE scale 52 per cent. of pupils leaving with five or more GCSEs compared with 44 per cent. in England. Equally important at the lower end is the fact that 5 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils leave secondary education without qualifications, compared with 8 per cent. in England. Those percentages speak for themselves in terms of the Northern Ireland system.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I share the Secretary of State's confidence in our education system and appreciate that selection could come a year later, does he accept that

some schools are surreptitiously avoiding the concept of selection? In terms of primary education, it is the controlled sector that is being endangered.

Mr. Ancram: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I should be grateful if he would let me know of specific instances of the avoidance of selection. The purpose of the Northern Ireland education system is to produce choice and part of that is to have a selective system so that parents can put their children forward for selection in the transfer test, as about 70 per cent. do. It is important to recognise that it is not only Northern Ireland parents who recognise the value of selective education. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, also recognises it for her children.

Mr. Worthington: Can the Minister assure an incoming Labour Government that there will be money to run the education system that he has described? It is already known that the education and library boards are heading for a deficit of millions of pounds. There was supposed to be £8 million in the budget for nursery provision. That has disappeared. Some £2 million was to be saved by the change in education and library boards. What has happened to that money? Is it in the budget? What will be the cost of incorporation of the further education colleges, on which the Government have already spent £1 million and have not passed the legislation? In area after area, such as in school transport, there are supposed to be savings. There are some great black holes in the Northern Ireland education budget. Will the Minister open the books and tell us what is happening?

Mr. Ancram: Savings will be made in almost every area that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—if he and other hon. Members support legislation that the Government intend to introduce. I look forward to hearing of his support when that occurs. I was interested to hear him ask whether money will be available, because I had understood that the shadow Chancellor had made it clear that the Government's announced spending figures would not be changed in the unlikely event of an incoming Labour Government. Once again, as Opposition spokesmen have so often made clear, there is a distinct gulf between the shadow Chancellor's statements and shadow Ministers' spending projections.

Employment Opportunities

Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present level of unemployment and on future employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. [11969]

Mr. Ancram: Unemployment is falling rapidly in Northern Ireland. During 1996, it fell by 12,000, and the figure is now the lowest in over 16 years. Employment also is at record levels—currently 573,160—and I am confident that the growing economy will continue to offer increasing job opportunities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beggs: The good news every month of falling unemployment is very welcome. We pay tribute to Baroness Denton and to the staff of the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development


unit on their success in job promotion. We also recognise that responsible trade unionism in Northern Ireland has provided stability in workplaces and given encouragement and confidence to employers and to investors. Does the Minister agree, however, that the best news that Northern Ireland could receive would be an announcement by Sinn Fein-IRA that there will be an end to terrorism and that there will be an unqualified and unconditional ceasefire and permanent peace—which would again bring a boost in investment and tourism?

Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to those agencies and persons, not least to my noble Friend Lady Denton. I will ensure that she is aware of the tribute. I also appreciate his comment on trades unions' conduct, which has certainly played a major part in achieving the stability that has made the figures possible.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the effects of terrorism on job prospects. It would certainly be good for the Province and for its economy if the IRA were to cease violence. We must never forget the damage that is done to the economy and to job prospects by increasing levels of violence. Terrorism destroys the hopes of communities and families of being able to achieve a prosperous future. Nowhere was that fact more clearly demonstrated than two nights ago, when the IRA fired a weapon that missed its intended target but hit the Springvale training centre, which produces job skill training to try to get people into jobs.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming Shorts' announcement of 500 new jobs, to work on the new Bombardier regional jet? However, are Ministers not concerned that the beneficial effect that those jobs might have on employment figures will be undone by the revaluation of non-domestic properties—which, in some cases, will triple the rates paid by small shops and other small businesses—and that hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs could consequently be lost? Will the Government consider a transitional relief scheme so that people can move gradually to the higher rates, rather than having to endure the entire increase in one year?

Mr. Ancram: I certainly welcome the job announcements mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is on the Treasury Bench, is considering the type of transitional scheme that he mentioned, and we will make announcements in due course.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister think that the quite ferocious cuts in funds for the ACE—action for community employment—schemes, which are directed specifically at the long-term unemployed, are likely to assist that group of unemployed people in Northern Ireland? Does he not think that the matter ought to be reviewed and that those very valuable schemes should be supported instead of weakened?

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. He knows that this year there has been a particularly difficult public expenditure round in which priorities have had to be examined carefully, not least because of the need to find £120 million to meet the increased costs that have arisen as a result of renewed

violence and terrorism. In that context, a number of serious questions had to be asked about the allocation of resources. In the light of falling unemployment figures and the changed situation since the introduction of ACE, it was reckoned that these cuts had to be made, although it was a difficult choice.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the part of Northern Ireland that experienced the greatest drop in the number of people out of work since the beginning of the temporary ceasefire was west Belfast? Will he confirm that, when the IRA goes back to killing—the way it killed Gerry McCabe, the Irish policeman, Frank Kerr, the postal worker in Newry, and many others—it is killing the job prospects of many of those who most need work, such as young Catholics in west Belfast?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is absolutely no doubt that terrorism and violence affect the prospects, not only of those against whom they are aimed but of the communities of the perpetrators. It is an insult to the futures of their children that the IRA continue with terror in the way it does—I roundly condemn it.

Mr. Illsley: We, too, welcome the dramatic fall in unemployment in Northern Ireland, but has not part of that dramatic fall been the result of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, which has forced a number of claimants off the job register because of the very strict conditions of the jobseeker's contract? Should not the Government reconsider the cuts to the action for community employment schemes, which have a proven record in providing employment for the long-term unemployed, especially at a time when the job skills programme is in a state of confusion?

Mr. Ancram: The introduction of the jobseeker's allowance may have had some impact but it was designed to ensure that those who claimed to be unemployed were genuinely unemployed. The way in which we can best serve the unemployed in Northern Ireland is to create more jobs and to have a growing economy. Instead of talking down the Northern Ireland economy, we should be talking it up.
Manufacturing output in Northern Ireland has increased by 1.7 per cent. in quarter two to three compared with 0.6 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. Manufacturing exports in 1994–95 rose by 21 per cent. over the previous year—twice the UK rate. They are the signs of a growing economy that can produce jobs, and that is what we should be concentrating on.

Peace Process

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position with the peace process. [11970]

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent contact he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland to promote peaceful dialogue. [11972]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Participants returned to the multi-party talks, initially for bilateral discussions, on


Monday 13 January. The first session of the opening plenary since the break was held last Monday. We believe that there remains scope for progress before the elections and we shall continue to make every effort to secure it. Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from the process, in the absence of an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he say whether he has noticed the fact that 65 hon. Members have today signed early-day motion 461 which calls for a re-examination of the events of Bloody Sunday? Does he agree that an honest and open re-examination of those events could only help the peace process?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The events of Bloody Sunday constituted a tragedy—there is no doubt about that. That tragedy was investigated by Lord Chief Justice Widgery. If there is any substantial fresh evidence, it should be submitted to the authorities where it will receive full and proper consideration.

Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that Don Mullin's recent book on the events of Bloody Sunday provides important and compelling new evidence which should be examined independently so that the deaths and tragedy can be dealt with properly and guilt properly ascribed? If we are to build a peace process, there must be dialogue, but grievances and injustice must be examined and dealt with. Surely that has to be the way forward; otherwise we descend once more into the violence of the past 25 years.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise that, in the history of Ireland—Northern Ireland and the Republic—many grievous events have occurred that live long in people's memories. I do not regard that as a matter of criticism, although I wish that people looked forward as vigorously as they sometimes look back. If there is fresh evidence in Mr. Mullin's book, I find it surprising that it was not first submitted to the authorities, if it was thought to be of significance. That should happen now that the book has been published. Any fresh evidence will receive proper consideration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that there have been bloody Mondays, bloody Tuesdays, bloody Wednesdays, bloody Thursdays, bloody Fridays and bloody Saturdays. What does he think of the attitude of IRA-Sinn Fein, who mouthed to the media about a peace process when their colleagues entered a sick children's hospital and tried to kill a colleague of mine and put a bullet through a baby's incubator? Will he investigate what happened two nights ago, when a crowd inside and outside that hospital rioted because the police tried to arrest a person who was hijacking a car?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The first part of my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) showed that I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about previous outrages. Violence, from whatever quarter, is to be condemned. The Government and all people of decent mind unfailingly do so.
I notice that Sinn Fein now has a slogan,
A fresh opportunity for peace.

It is remarkable that it should believe there to be a fresh opportunity for peace when the IRA, with which it is inextricably linked, has broken its ceasefire. There is no place for violence in the politics of any democracy.
I shall have the matter with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question investigated.

Mr. Trimble: I ask the Secretary of State to turn his mind back three and a half months, to a paper that we submitted to him and the other participants in the inter-party talks. The paper showed how the talks could proceed to substantive issues quickly. Does he share my disappointment that, rather than following the path that we had mapped out, some parties preferred to give a higher priority to trying to involve Sinn Fein in the process, notwithstanding the abundant evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA are committed to violent methods and to a mixture of threat and political manoeuvre to achieve their ends? Does he agree that the resulting impasse must be tackled positively and that there is no point in us being stuck in that impasse? It is now necessary to find other ways to make progress.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recall the paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is, unhappily, beginning to be clear that Sinn Fein is unwilling to make the declared commitment to exclusively peaceful purposes that is the passport to the talks required of all parties. Nevertheless, it is necessary to proceed by consent within the rules of procedure agreed in the talks process. It has been necessary, in our judgment, to try to find an agreed solution to the problems of decommissioning arms. That is why we have taken so long over it. I know that the hon. Gentleman is impatient and wants to get to the substance. We should also like to get to the substance. We shall continue our efforts to find a way to do so by consent when we resume next week.

Mr. Dykes: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to return to those questions that were allowed by the Chair about events in 1972? I wish him well in the Government's continuing peace process. Given that the events of 1972 have been raised again, and bearing in mind the words of the Irish Foreign Minister—a respected figure in Irish and international politics, and in this country—would it not be right for the matter, which is of great concern, to be considered again, not least in view of the need to reassure the Catholic community in Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I know of my hon. Friend's concern and have seen the paper that he has recently published on the subject. Very manifest difficulties are involved in investigating afresh something that occurred 25 years ago, however serious it may be and tragic its consequences. However, I repeat that, if from whatever quarter fresh evidence of real substance is presented, it will be received and examined properly and thoroughly. We need no encouragement from sources outside, however distinguished, to do that.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will remember that, when the Prime Minister presented the proposals for multi-party talks, he assured everyone in writing that they would be real, and would meaningfully address the concerns of both communities, and that no single issue


would be allowed to block the substantive negotiations on the three strands. Eight months later, we have not even completed the opening agenda. Will the Secretary of State tell us in specific terms what steps the two Governments envisage taking to ensure that we progress into those negotiations, now and that the nature of the problem and the solution will not change simply because there is to be a general election?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that the general election has anything to do with the nature of the solution. The hon. Gentleman asked me what steps the two Governments can take to ensure that we move now into the substance. It is not within the power of the two Governments to ensure that we move now into the substance because that step has to be made in circumstances and on conditions that achieve sufficient agreement among the participants. There has been no change in the British Government's position since the time to which he referred. We have always made it clear, with the Irish Government, that those who will take part in the process of talks will be those who declare and show themselves to be wholly and exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic principles and methods. That is, of course, the significance of the decommissioning issue, which has proved, and is continuing to prove, so troublesome.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Given the apparently slow process of the all-party talks and the reluctance of some to participate in them at all, what is the current role and effect, if any, of dialogue between the British Government and, respectively, the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America in possibly catalysing the effectiveness of the talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I pay tribute to the interest of the United States of America, and of course to the interest of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. In my view, the effect of American interest has been especially beneficial, with the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell and the President's encouragement. There is, however, no substitute for people coming to agreement. Imposition is not a very helpful concept when we are considering future political arrangements for Northern Ireland. Unless we are to continue with direct rule, people must come to agreement through their representatives. We must continue to press for that, however long it takes.

Mr. Hunter: With regard to the Bloody Sunday controversy, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we could spend a very long time going through the pages of Anglo-Irish history, apportioning and reapportioning blame, but the exercise would achieve nothing? It is far better to spend our time and energies building new relations than reliving past tragedies.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend points to something of great importance. We have to look forward. An immensely long and very controversial history of course affects the whole of Ireland, but we must not be governed by it. I repeat that a full inquiry was conducted by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, but if

there is anything of substance and significance that anybody believes ought to be considered by the authorities, there will be no obstruction to that and it will be thoroughly reviewed. I agree with my hon. Friend's thrust that we must be looking forward.

Ms Mowlam: I would like to send my condolences to the families of those who died on Bloody Sunday and to all the families who have lost someone in the conflict in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although this is a difficult time for parties to take extra steps forward in the talks, the time will always be difficult, and that what is needed now is a determination from all parties to make some progress? Do the two Governments have any specific plans to encourage and assist the parties to take those steps?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I endorse what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks and her concern that people do not stay in rigid positions to the exclusion of sensible opportunities to make progress in the talks.
On the last part of the hon. Lady's question, this Government—for whom alone I can speak—are always available, in bilateral discussions or on other occasions, to discuss ways in which we could help with any other participant in the talks. That is the virtue of the bilateral talks in which we have been, and are still, engaged.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received in regard to Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, currently imprisoned in Northern Ireland. [11971]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): A number of representations have been received from various public figures. These include representations received recently in support of comments made in a letter circulated by former Scots Guards officers.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he aware of the exemplary service given by those two young men, who were prepared to lay down their lives to protect all the citizens of Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that, in the past, two soldiers who were convicted for similar crimes were released within three and a half years? Those young men have now been in prison for four and a half years. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that enough is enough? They offer no threat to society, and it is time they came out.

Sir John Wheeler: Of course I am aware of the character of the service that those two guardsmen may have given during their duties in Northern Ireland, but questions of guilt and innocence are matters for the courts to determine, and they have determined that Fisher and Wright had no lawful justification for firing at their victim. The cases of those guardsmen will now be considered in accordance with the terms of Mr. Justice Girvan's judgment, and the cases will be referred to the


Secretary of State, who will satisfy himself about any decision that is taken. I cannot, of course, prejudge the outcome of that exercise.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the Minister be prepared to meet Sir David Scott-Barrett and others who have pleaded the guardsmen's case?

Sir John Wheeler: Of course Ministers are always glad to meet distinguished persons to hear what they have to say, but I emphasise that Ministers cannot prejudge the outcome of proper inquiries.

Witnesses (Intimidation)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding intimidation of witnesses. [11973]

Sir John Wheeler: The Government have not received any recent representations regarding intimidation of witnesses.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the intimidation of witnesses a scandal and a perversion of the course of justice? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to tighten up on that scandal?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the concern that he has exhibited about the matter. It is a serious concern in Northern Ireland, and the Government have taken steps to strengthen the law. In 1996, a new statutory offence of intimidation of witnesses and jurors was created in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order, which also covers pre-trial intimidation and revenge attacks after the trial. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of strengthening and maintaining the law to deal with that problem.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that the problem is not exclusively the intimidation of witnesses but the intimidation of entire local communities, whose members have been beaten, crucified upside down or shot? The whole issue must be examined in that light. Can he give us an idea of the number of brutal beatings and other punishments that have occurred in the past year? Has the retribution against people intimidating those communities been equal to the magnitude of the crime?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there are other forms of intimidation, especially of the nationalist population of Northern Ireland, by terrorist thugs. Since last year, there have been many hundred brutal attacks of great savagery. They are all investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is of course dependent on information from the complainant; if that is forthcoming, people may be arrested, charged and placed before the courts. It is a most serious matter that engages the attention of the Government and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary every day.

Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that intimidation of witnesses can occur in cases of stalking? Why is the Protection from Harassment Bill not to apply to Northern

Ireland except under the undemocratic procedures? Why is Northern Ireland not treated as part of the United Kingdom in that legislation?

Sir John Wheeler: I agree with the hon. Lady: it is important that protection is provided in such circumstances. As she knows, Northern Ireland has its own criminal justice system and body of law, and it will be the Government's intention to follow the line of England and Wales in a separate order, replicating what is done for England and Wales, as soon as possible.

BSE

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken since 1 January to eradicate BSE from the beef herd in Northern Ireland and to have the ban on beef exports lifted. [11974]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government continue to take all steps recommended by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to eradicate BSE. That includes the recent implementation of the selective cull. The United Kingdom will shortly submit formal proposals for a certified herds scheme to the European Commission.

Mr. Ross: That is all very well as far as it goes, but will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there will be no delay by the Government in introducing a workable certified herds scheme in Northern Ireland, and that, when the cull takes place, there will be immediate EC verification, and Northern Ireland will not have to wait until the rest of the United Kingdom carries out its cull?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can give the assurance that the selective cull will proceed quickly and will not take long, because it will not apply to a large number of animals. The certified herds scheme which will shortly be introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on behalf of all the Agriculture Departments in the United Kingdom will be the result of a consultation exercise that has recently been completed.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the farmers of Northern Ireland on their courage and determination during the BSE crisis? Does he agree that Northern Ireland should be given special status in Europe as a priority, because of its excellent beef, and that that could be the way in which the United Kingdom as a whole could get out of the present mess concerning BSE in Europe?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the quality of Northern Ireland's beef. I am glad to say that that is evidenced by special contracts made by major importers and suppliers in Great Britain, in full recognition of the special quality of our beef, which in part derives from our electronic tracing scheme, which has been in place for the past eight years. Any scheme proposed on behalf of the United Kingdom will be a United Kingdom scheme, but it will undoubtedly be one from which Northern Ireland producers will be the first to benefit, for that reason.

Mr. Soley: Does the second part of the first answer to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mean


that, if the Government are unable to get certified agreement for the whole of the United Kingdom, they will go ahead with a separate application for Northern Ireland, which meets the requirements laid down by the European Union?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We do not anticipate failing in our application for a United Kingdom certified herds scheme, because the case for it will be overwhelming. It will be put forward on behalf of the UK as a necessary step to give effect to the Florence agreement.

Inward Investment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Northern Ireland. [11975]

Mr. Ancram: The year ending 31 March 1996 was the best ever for inward investment in Northern Ireland. Thirty-five projects were secured, offering 4,869 new jobs and representing total investment of £432 million. So far this year, 15 investments by externally owned companies have been secured for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. A company told me today that, by relocating from Belgium to Britain, it had cut total costs by 40 per cent. Does that not demonstrate the job-creating policies of this Government and the job-destructive characteristics of the social chapter and a national minimum wage?

Mr. Ancram: I agree totally with my hon. Friend Again, that goes to show that the Government's policy in that area is totally right and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January. [11997]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of reports today that the national health service is in near-collapse in the north-west of England, with bed shortages and people waiting on trolleys? It is in crisis in Bradford as well, with 289 operations cancelled in the past quarter. A much-needed accident and emergency unit, which we were promised, has not been delivered after many years and we have the outrage of two new mixed-sex wards, which the Prime Minister said would not happen. Is not the truth that there are two health services, just as there are two Tory parties—a real health service which is near collapse and a fantasy health service which the Prime Minister talks about in the press?

Mr. Skinner: Tell us about fantasy land.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear what I have to say.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred to the north-west. He might have begun by acknowledging the brand new £2.9 million extension to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Liverpool hospital, which opened a year or so ago and makes it one of the finest accident and emergency hospitals in the country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South shakes his head. He does not think that it is one of the finest; I do.
The demand for the national health service is rising and so is the capacity to meet that demand, which is why more patients are being treated. Every health authority has made its plans for dealing with the growth in demand this year, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made additional sums available to deal with that demand.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Gibraltar are fiercely proud of being British and do not want to be a province of Spain? Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously to support the people of Gibraltar to ensure that they have the same freedom of movement and voting that is taken for granted in the rest of Europe?

The Prime Minister: Britain stands by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar, which was enshrined in the 1969 constitution. We will not be entering into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The Spanish Foreign Minister raised that matter informally with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as indeed he had done on a previous occasion. My right hon. and learned Friend rejected the idea, because such a proposal did not and would not have the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Blair: A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that it was essential in the national interest that our options remained open on a single currency and that he expected Conservative candidates to stand on that national manifesto. Is that still his expectation of Conservative candidates?

The Prime Minister: I think that, before taking me to task on this, the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps talk to the scores of his own Members of Parliament that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said would oppose his stance. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said:
I think it almost an obligation to be honest with my own electorate.
But the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would not understand that. He entered the House on an election address that demanded Britain's withdrawal from the Community, even though he said later:
I wasn't actually opposed to membership of the E.C. … I said within the closed doors of the Labour party that I disagreed with that policy.
Behind closed doors he says one thing, in public another: not the politics of conviction, but convenience, saying anything to get a vote—and that is what he advocates to his candidates.

Mr. Blair: The Labour party put its manifesto to its membership and got 95 per cent. support—I doubt that


the Prime Minister could put his manifesto to his Cabinet and get 95 per cent. support. After all, I was only asking him to agree with what he himself said a few weeks ago. If he cannot say that he now expects Conservative candidates to do that, has he still the vestige of authority and courage left to stand at that Dispatch Box and say now that at least he strongly urges and seeks to persuade Conservative candidates to stand on his and the Government's position?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. Is he telling the House that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are actually going to support his policy on Europe at the general election? He raises it on this day of all days—the first two Labour questioners on the Order Paper are among the 50 who say that we should not join a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman may ask his candidates to fib to the electorate—our candidates will set out their views, we will follow the policy that the Government have set out and people know our policy. What he is trying to do is to censor and smother what his party stands for.

Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister two questions. I said, as he himself said a few weeks ago, "Does he expect them to stand on the same manifesto?" I answer, "Yes." I then asked him, "Will he at least seek to persuade people to stand on the same manifesto?" I answer, "Yes." He is so weak and powerless, he cannot even say. He cannot even get to that—[Interruption.] Is it not extraordinary—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Blair: Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister of our country cannot even urge his party to support his own position? Weak, weak, weak, weak. I tell him that his weakness and his failure of leadership are the reason his Government are the incompetent mess they are.

The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman gets abusive, we know that he is losing. If he is concerned about strength, will he today sack the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who yesterday contradicted what he said about tax? Will he today sack the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party, who yesterday contradicted what was said about tax? All the right hon. Gentleman does is heckle and waft his arms around in a hopeless gesture. Yes or no—will he sack them or not? It is his policy, they are members of his shadow Cabinet, and they have denied his policy.
We have set out consistently what our policy is. I have said that it is important to keep the options—all the options—open. The right hon. Gentleman sniggers—I am quoting his words, not mine. He has followed in grandmother's footsteps in following policy after policy of ours. He says that we should keep the options open. We

keep the options open, but his policy apparently means something quite different, because he dare not admit what his policy is.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He was shouting abuse at the Prime Minister."] Order, If anyone has been abusive, they will indicate it to me. [Interruption.] Order. I think that a lot of hon. Members are suffering from pre-election tension. Let us get on with Question Time. There are hon. Members I want to call.

Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend has undoubtedly seen the statement by the chairman of Toyota. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Toyota came to this country because my right hon. Friend's policies provided the most favourable climate for companies such as Toyota to have a gateway into Europe? Does the chairman's statement not show that it is important that we should maintain that gateway—important that we should maintain our foot in Europe, so that we get increased investment?

The Prime Minister: We intend to maintain our voice in Europe—there should be absolutely no doubt about that—but we do not intend to follow slavishly whatever happens to be the favoured policy of some European Governments at any particular moment. We shall not follow policies that would be damaging to British interests. We shall not sign social chapters. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party is scoffing, as usual. I tell him: one signature on the social chapter will mean half a million signatures on the dole.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has pursued a conscientious and honourable policy in pursuing a path to peace in Northern Ireland and we have been unwavering in support of that. Does he realise that he will lose that, and much else besides, if he fails to apply rigorously, in full and now, the recommendations of the North report, which he brought into being, and jeopardises peace on the streets of Northern Ireland next summer for continuing Unionist support and a few more days in power?

The Prime Minister: In a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman will hear a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the North report. However, in view of what he just said, I invite him to read the North report, and perhaps especially paragraph 1.49, which says:
We are well aware that it is for the Government to take a view on how far it wishes to adopt our recommendations".
It goes on to say:
No doubt there will be a period of consultation, and there may be some question as to how far new structures and procedures can be put in place in time for the 1997 'marching season'.
Some can be put in place, as my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House, but the matter is more complex


than the right hon. Gentleman intimated. I suggest that he wait to listen to the detailed statement by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one should not unfairly—or even fairly—always go back to what people put in their election addresses in the 1980s, but one might want to look at what they put in their election addresses at the last general election and then wonder how many of those policies they have reversed in the past five years?

The Prime Minister: I think it is possible—[Interruption.] I am prepared to offer a prize to anyone who can find five policies on which the right hon Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has been consistent.

Mr. Hume: Is the Prime Minister aware that today is the 25th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities in the past 25 years in Northern Ireland, when the security forces shot dead 14 people on the streets of my city? Does he agree that the more than 3,000 people who have died in the past 25 years have all suffered atrocity, and that their families have suffered trauma because of such tragedies?
Given that that was the only atrocity that was carried out by the security forces with the ratification of Government, and given that the Prime Minister has told me in writing that those who were killed on Bloody Sunday should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives,

can he please tell me why they were shot? If he does not know, does he not think that the matter requires public investigation?

The Prime Minister: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels about the matter. Everybody knows his record in Northern Ireland over the years, and I pay due tribute to it.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of ratification by Government. I think that he might wish to reconsider what he said about that. The events of 25 years ago constituted a terrible tragedy. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that everyone is determined that the lessons of that day are never forgotten. That, too, I share with the hon. Gentleman.
The actions at the time were fully investigated by the Widgery committee. I know of no reason at present to reopen that inquiry. If anyone has fresh, relevant evidence, of course it should be sent to the proper authorities. The important point is that everyone acknowledges the tragedy of what happened a quarter of a century ago today. The Government, with the hon. Gentleman's help and, I concede, with the help of the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the Labour party and many others, have been trying to reach a situation in Northern Ireland where there never, ever again need be any prospect of such an event recurring. That is what I passionately want. I do not believe that anyone doubts that. Without fresh evidence, I see no advantage in raking over old problems. If there were fresh evidence, of course we would examine it.

Northern Ireland Parades (North Report)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the independent review of parades and marches in Northern Ireland, which was published this morning in Belfast.
Last summer, public disorder occurred in Northern Ireland on a very grave scale, associated in particular, but not exclusively, with a parade at Drumcree. Immense disruption was caused, with massive damage to property, including churches and schools. The murder of a taxi driver may also have been related. Deep and lasting injury was inflicted on both sides of the community, and on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who were placed in an intolerable position. Actual and threatened force obliged the Chief Constable to reverse a previous order, in the interest of avoiding loss of life, which is always his first duty. The improvement in Northern Ireland's image, which is so important economically in particular, was sharply reversed.
In the light of those shocking events, I announced on 15 July the establishment of the review, with the task of making recommendations about the future management of controversial parades.
The review was asked to consider the existing arrangements for handling public processions and open-air meetings in Northern Ireland, including the adequacy of the current legal provisions; the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the police and others; the possible need for new machinery; and the possible role for and composition of codes of practice relating to parades and meetings.
The review body comprised Dr. Peter North, vice-chancellor of Oxford university, the Very Rev. Dr. John Dunlop and Father Oliver Crilly. We are all indebted to Dr. North and his colleagues for the energy, determination and thoroughness with which they have tackled their very difficult task.
The report is a long and closely argued document, with more than 40 recommendations. It proposes, as the foundation of its other recommendations, that seven fundamental principles should form the basis for the development of processes and procedures governing parades. I should say immediately that the Government accept those principles, which include both the protection of the right to peaceful free assembly and the need to ensure—preferably through local accommodation—that the exercise of that right takes proper account of foreseeable effects on relationships within the community.
The report emphasises the predominant importance of reaching local agreement on every contentious parade. It goes on to recommend that an independent commission should be established as a focus for promoting and facilitating mediation and the search for such local accommodation in respect of contentious marches. It also proposes that, in default of successful mediation, the commission would have legal powers to issue a determination in respect of a contentious parade, but with a power for the Chief Constable—if he is concerned about it—to refer such a determination to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then decide the matter by endorsing, revising or reversing the determination, applying the same statutory criteria as the commission.
Furthermore, it is proposed that a senior police officer could override a determination on the day of a parade if the police found that, as a result of the likely impact on public order, they were unable to uphold it. The report recommends that a new offence be created of deliberately contravening, through force of numbers or threat of disorder, a decision of the commission—for example, by seeking to block an authorised parade.
The report also recommends that the statutory criteria for making decisions on parades set out in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 should be enlarged to enable specific consideration to be given to the wider impact of contentious parades on relationships within the community. It also makes a wide range of further major recommendations, including, for example, the extension of the period of notice of a planned parade required to be given to the police from the current period of not fewer than seven days to not fewer than 21 days; and the preparation of a statutory code of conduct covering the behaviour of parade participants and protesters.
We recognise the report's description of the parades issue as a microcosm of the wider political problems of Northern Ireland, and as one that has the capacity to polarise the community and to engage levels of emotion and commitment that few other issues reach. Because of that, the Government have a responsibility to take the issues forward as far as possible on a basis of widespread agreement within the community so that whatever new arrangements are put in place may be recognised as fair and workable, and therefore acceptable. In that way, they stand the best chance of being effective and successful. As Dr. North and his colleagues say:
our shared view
is
that the way to the complete resolution of the issue is through the community working together in search of mutual accommodation.
It is against this background that the Government have considered the proposals contained in the report.
The Government agree that an independent body could indeed play a constructive and valuable role in helping to resolve disputes concerning contentious parades. The Government believe that a new body of that kind could provide a valuable focus and a catalyst for mediation and conciliation efforts at local level. In respect of these non-adjudicatory functions, the Government endorse the report's recommendations, which they believe should be implemented without delay.
At the same time, the Government recognise that the proposal that an independent body should, as part of its duties, take over the RUC's decision-making power in respect of parades is a radical and far-reaching one. The report notes the wide range of views that it received on precisely that issue. Therefore, it would not, in our view, be right for Government—without further but time-limited consultation—to reach a decision on so fundamental a proposal.
It therefore expresses no opinion on it either way, but it will seek the views of interested groups on the report's proposal that the commission should have a decision-making role of this kind and, if so, on the way in which it might be exercised. That consultation will also encompass those of the North recommendations linked directly to the role of a commission, including those directed at the possible expansion of the statutory criteria, the publication of guidelines that the commission would


take into account and the creation of a new criminal offence of setting out deliberately to contravene a legal determination.
This consultation will not duplicate the consultation already conducted by Dr. North and his colleagues, but will be a precisely focused and time-limited exercise to give public representatives and others who are directly concerned the opportunity to comment on an important matter of real concern to them and those whom they represent. The Government envisage that the period of consultation will last until the end of March. In any event, implementation of the recommendation, if that were to be the decision eventually reached, would require a statutory basis. While final decisions on the way forward on this issue may fall to the new Parliament, the Government, for their part, are clear that any such provision should be provided by primary legislation—by Bill rather than by Order in Council.
The Government therefore intend to establish, as soon as possible, an independent body of five people, to be known as the Parades Commission, with the mediation, conciliation and education roles recommended in the report. We intend that the new commission should be in place ahead of this year's marching season, precisely because we recognise that it has a valuable role to play, potentially, of that character, and could also have the capacity to act as a valuable and reassuring channel of communication with all interested parties, including the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Secretary of State. Further details of its operation will be promulgated when the membership of the commission is announced. Legislation will not be required for this purpose.
Turning to the report's recommendations that are not directly linked to the role of a commission and do not therefore fall to be considered as part of the consultation exercise, the Government accept them all, subject to further consideration of how these might best be implemented in practice.
In particular, we agree that a code of conduct, covering parades, protests and open-air public meetings, should be prepared and published for consultation as soon as practicable. We agree that a registration scheme for bands should be introduced as soon as the necessary practical arrangements can be put in place.
We agree that the period of notice for parades should be extended from seven to 21 days, that the amendments that the report proposes to article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 should be implemented, and that consideration should be given to the changes suggested to articles 4(1)(b) and 7; and that appropriate provisions for the control of alcohol in respect of those travelling to both processions and open-air meetings in Northern Ireland should be introduced. We shall implement these changes as soon as practicable.
We agree that parade organisers should not be required to post bonds or provide proof of insurance cover, and that steps should not be taken to seek a contribution to policing costs from parade organisers or protesters.
The House will, I think, join me in thanking Dr. North and his colleagues for producing this report, which represents an extremely important contribution to our consideration of these difficult and complex matters.
The events of last summer cast a pall of fear across Northern Ireland. As the report states, an abyss of anarchy opened up. All people of good will must surely demand that there be no repetition, but no mechanisms and no procedures can be enough on their own.
There needs to be within all who live in Northern Ireland the will and the personal determination that last year's terrible events shall never again occur. To that end, the Government pledge that they will play their own part to the full.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I also thank the authors of the report, Dr. Peter North, Father Oliver Crilly and the Very Rev. John Dunlop, and their staff. It is a thorough and useful report that addresses issues of significance that in the end require politicians to make political judgments.
At heart, the issue is about the rule of law. We believe that the rule of law is paramount, and we hope that all parties in the House will join us in fully supporting the rule of law.
The review conducted by Dr. Peter North and his colleagues was demanded, as the Secretary of State said, by the events of Drumcree last year, when, as the Royal Ulster Constabulary former Chief Constable said,
the consent to comply with the rule of law did not exist.
The police were put in an impossible position. The House has a duty to do all that it can to prevent such a situation from arising again. The security forces in Northern Ireland enforce the will of the House with day-to-day courage and determination. We should not ask them to play piggy in the middle again.
In August, we saw a glimmer of hope when, as a result of a clear Government decision, and alongside local efforts by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Alistair Simpson of the Apprentice Boys, the tensions were effectively contained.
We must keep this problem in proportion. Of the many hundreds of parades that occurred last year, only a handful created problems. Every effort must be made to ensure that, whenever possible, local agreement is reached through discussion and mediation, as the report acknowledges. Only when those efforts are exhausted should other, more formal, mechanisms be employed.
To those who say that the recommendations of the report could breach their fundamental rights, I say this: the right to march is a fundamental human right. We support that right and it is fully supported in the report, which says:
The right to peaceful free assembly should be protected".
But, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would say, all rights carry responsibilities. The responsibility in this case is to take account of the likely effect exercising one's right to march may have on relationships with other parts of the community.
The report is no panacea, and further examination, either by the Government or by a commission, is clearly required in certain areas, such as the content of a code of conduct, or the length of period of notice for parades. Will the Secretary of State enter into immediate discussion with us and others? By the end of February there could be consensus and continued bipartisanship on measures that could be put in place immediately in March, either legislatively or administratively, so that any Government will be better prepared for the 1997 marching season.
I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important to get this right: we will store up trouble for the years ahead if we do not. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman acts on the guts of the report, the staged approach that he recommends will be undermined.
After thoroughly examining the views of all interested parties, members of the review team recommended that, on balance, what is central is that an independent commission should be created, that it should not be an advisory body but that its conclusions should have the force of law, subject of course to appeal and review. We support the recommendation, and would like the Secretary of State to explain to the House why further consultations are necessary on that point. What views will he seek that have not already been sought by the reviewers? Furthermore, why does he think that in just eight weeks he will be able to improve on the conclusions that those who conducted the review reached over five months?
Will the Secretary of State clarify—I am not sure whether I have understood the report correctly—why he believes that a commission would take over the RUC's powers? My understanding is that the RUC would retain the power to ask for any decision to be reviewed by the Secretary of State, and would maintain operational flexibility.
We have been constructively critical: we have tried to make positive suggestions on this issue for more than 18 months, and we have urged the Secretary of State to take further action. We are in the business not of casting blame but of accepting responsibility. We have co-operated successfully with the Government throughout the past 18 months—most recently, over the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill—and we shall continue to give bipartisan support in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. We offer the Secretary of State our full support again today for the legislation that we urge him to introduce based on this report.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her concluding remarks. I gladly pay tribute to her party for the co-operation that it has given the Government in carrying out responsibilities that transcend party political tactics and matters of party political significance.
I am also grateful for her opening remarks, especially for her acknowledgement that every effort must at all times be made to reach local agreement. These are contentious marches because they arouse contention in the localities that they affect. The thrust of the report is that only after mediation and conciliation efforts have failed will there be a place for adjudication. That will always be second best to agreement. I think that the hon. Lady and I are at one of that.
I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady said about the qualified nature of all rights of this character. The report is correct in saying that if a right to march or protest is to be exercised, it must always be exercised with regard to how such action will impinge on opposite rights that are engaged at the same time and in the same locality. It is a question of balance, or, as the report puts it, of proportionality.
The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would consult the Opposition about what might be able to be put in place by the end of February. I have no difficulty in

saying, "Yes, we will"—and, indeed, that we will consult all others who have a proper interest. We want to establish, as quickly as is practicable, a commission with what, rather uncomfortably, I have called the non-adjudicatory responsibilities that the report specifies, and we will do that.
I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said about the importance of getting this right. Lest anyone complain about the fact that we are consulting, I reiterate what the Prime Minister has already reminded the House. The report itself says:
No doubt there will be a period of consultation.
It also says:
We are well aware that it is for the Government to take a view on how far it wishes to adopt our recommendations.
It is to get it right on the second limb of the recommendations that the Government are proposing a tightly focused and short-term period of consultation. In the meantime, we express no opinion one way or the other on that part of the recommendations. That is why we make that point.
The consultation exercise is not a re-run of the review. That was another of the hon. Lady's questions. Interested parties have already had an opportunity to present their views, but they will not have seen the report's far-reaching and important recommendations until today. We recognise that we have a heavy responsibility to take the report and the issues forward, on the basis of the widest possible agreement within the community. That is why we are proposing a consultation period that is precisely focused and time-limited. We are committed—once we have made decisions in the light of that consultation—to implement them as soon as possible.
The hon. Lady asked why I had said that this would be taking powers from the RUC. She is right in saying that the report says that, in the absence of mediation, the commission would have the determining power itself, but that would be subject—if the Chief Constable were concerned about it—to the Chief Constable's power to refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who thereafter would be the determining authority. That is, of course, a radical departure from the present position, in which the Chief Constable both makes the decision and enforces it, in the light only of considerations relating to public order.

Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking that any implementation of the report will be by proper legislation, rather than by means of the thoroughly unsatisfactory Order in Council procedure. I also welcome his decision to consult further on the more radical proposals in the report—proposals that do indeed have constitutional implications. In doing that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing a distinction between the conciliation functions suggested for the commission, and the adjudication functions. He has put his finger on an important point: that conciliation and adjudication are, by their very nature, two different functions, and that to give them to the same body will result in the adjudication function distorting and undermining the question of conciliation.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the present circumstances, the overriding need is to maintain the Queen's peace and to leave the highways free for all who wish to proceed along them peacefully? Does he agree that that responsibility must rest with the police and the


Government? As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, at the end of the day these are matters requiring political judgment.
I understand the desire to promote conciliation, but let me put two points to the Secretary of State. One has to bear it in mind that, if one creates too elaborate a machinery, it gives rise to more rather than fewer problems, and some elements in society in Northern Ireland are determined to use the problems to create serious public disorder.
That brings me to a point that amazed me when reading the report. I have had only a few hours to read it, and perhaps the Secretary of State can correct me, but I think that the report contains no reference to the IRA, to Sinn Fein and to those elements that are associated with them, which have used these occasions to foment serious public disorder Is it not a serious failing that the report has failed to consider the basic underlying problem, and does that not to some extent undermine the approach?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for aspects of what I have said, and can move to his following points. He asks whether conciliation and adjudication are not very different concepts. Of course that is correct—they are. One of the objections to the present jurisdiction of the Chief Constable under the legislation is that he is both the decider of the issue, after attempts to conciliate and to find a local agreement, and thereafter the enforcer. That point was made by many people, apparently, to the commission. The hon. Gentleman's point as to whether the one can be done properly together with the other by the same body is a proper matter for consultation. It is one of the issues that will necessarily be discussed in the period that I have described.
The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Chief Constable's duties. Of course the parades give rise to difficult and delicate public order issues—we all know that—but the issues are not limited to public order. They give rise to wider aspects, which may be described as aspects of community relations or political aspects. As I have said, saving of life must always be the Chief Constable's first duty. Whether there is a satisfactory manner in which an independent body can take the decisions that will have major effects on public order and safety, determining them in the light of the principles that have been given is exactly the type of matter about which we need to hear advice.
Although many of these protests are genuinely made, there are some indications, as we all know, that they are used for strictly political purposes. I cannot point to a reference of the sort that the hon. Gentleman asks me about, but reality and realism suggest that that reference is there, and the report does say that there is a real question for consideration as to what will be the trigger mechanism by which the commission's jurisdiction will be engaged.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State think that, because of the seriousness of the matter, he should meet the leaders of all parties in the House and further discuss the matter because, as the hon. Member for Redcar said, if we do not get it right this time, in years to come, we will reap? I remind the House that we are reaping today. We are reaping the Public

Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I and other Unionist Members warned the House that that legislation would be a calamity.
I remind the House that every Unionist Member but three—the then hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—did short gaol sentences because we felt that it was our duty to breach that law to call the people's attention to its seriousness. The Secretary of State is well aware of one matter—that of traditional parades. When the right to them was breached by being removed from the legislation, there was all this trouble with such parades. Who made the statement that traditional parades would have to be removed from the legislation? It was none other than the Dublin authorities. They made it clear at the time and we protested in the House. We went to gaol so that people would be aware of the seriousness of the matter.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Redcar to say that no civil rights are involved. Why cannot have the public order legislation that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom? Why is it unlawful for me to do something in Northern Ireland that it is perfectly lawful for me to do after I have crossed a stretch of water? Hon. Members need not tell me that there are differences, because there are differences over here, such as racial tensions. We do not have racial tensions: we have tensions of the other sort.
The leader of the Liberal Democrat party said that the measures should be enacted immediately, but to do that would make no difference whatever to the present situation The Belfast Telegraph thought that it could get support for them, so it ran a poll and thought that it would come out wonderfully. But the Secretary of State knows that the poll showed that, by a ratio of five to one, the parades would have to go on. To say that that can be remedied by a little education by a commission is nonsense.
This is a serious matter and it will have to be dealt with seriously. If people want to parade to a church building and are refused permission, as my constituents have been, they may have every window in the church broken and graves desecrated. Graffiti on the walls of the Orange hall stated, "The Orange Order will never walk". Such situations must be dealt with seriously. Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever laws are put on the statute book everybody will be equally subject to them so that all are under the same law? Republican bands do not give seven days' notice: they walk and nothing is done about it.

Madam Speaker: Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind the House that we are asking questions on a serious report. I do not seek long comments and speeches but brisk questions and comments. Several hon. Members are on their feet, and I shall do my best to call as many as possible.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious matter. We must get it right, and it must be approached in a serious way. It would not be approached seriously if we implemented the report without giving people the opportunity of the character that I have described to express their opinions about the report's recommendations. I gladly give an undertaking


that I will meet all party leaders and all others in a representative capacity who have an interest in these matters and wish to see me during the consultation period. That is important.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Northern Ireland needs something different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I must tell him that it is for the same unhappy reason as we need other provisions to enable the security forces to deal with powerful factors. The situation in Northern Ireland is different, the history is different, the forces and the influences are different and that needs to be recognised in our legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I do not think that there will be the same need for him to feel, as he said at the beginning of his intervention, that his views have not been considered.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I compliment the North committee on the thoroughness with which, in the time available, it did a very difficult job. It did that job very well. But I must express my deep concern that the Government have taken the decision that the so-called "period of consultation" will very substantially postpone the date on which they and the House will make a decision on the matter. A decision will have to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are only three options: that the Secretary of State will make the decisions; that the Chief Constable will make the decisions; or that a body, as recommended by the North committee, will make the decisions?
We know the views of the previous Chief Constable. He said that they were sick to death of being caught in the middle and of having to make political decisions. Is the Secretary of State aware of the perception that will now be abroad in the north of Ireland—that a British Government are again long-fingering something to get themselves over their problems in the House of Commons, and that, in the summer months, the well-being of the people of the north of Ireland will be secondary to that consideration? That is a cynical view. I am not saying that it is my view, but it is a perception.
We have discussed this matter all my political life, and hon. Members from every party have discussed it with the Secretary of State and others. If Opposition Members were to assure the Secretary of State that legislation to put the proposals in place would not be opposed and that parliamentary time would be agreed to ensure that primary legislation is allowed to give the matter the serious consideration that it deserves, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceed to introduce legislation? If so, when we reach the awful summer months that we must face, the decisions will at least have been made, the uncertainty will have been removed and the legislative process will have been decided.
Will the Secretary of State respond to the offers that I believe will be made by the Labour party, by the Liberal Democrats and certainly by our party and many of the other smaller parties to facilitate legislation, for the sake of the people of the north of Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the compliment, which I am glad to endorse, paid by the hon. Gentleman to the quality of the report and to those who

are responsible for it. On his last point, although I cannot commit business managers, I shall express a personal preference—which I believe the Government share—that the Government, once we have reached a conclusion on the matters covered by the consultation that we recommend and wish to conduct, implement the decision as soon as possible, especially if it requires legislation. That is the best practical answer I can give the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a perception that the Government are putting the matter on the long finger and binning it. I am glad that he did not say that he holds that view himself, because it would be quite wrong to do so. The answer to the charge can be found in the passage, which the Prime Minister has already read out today, at paragraph 1.49, page 9 of the report. The commission itself states:
No doubt there will be a period of consultation".
It makes that statement in a manner that implies that it believes that doing so would be entirely reasonable. That is the answer to any cynical perception.
If I wanted to recommend means by which the matter could run away into the sand, I would recommend an open-ended period of consultation—not only on the second but on the first limb of the recommendations. I am not doing so at all, and I do not have the slightest difficulty in resisting and rebutting any perceptions of that character.

Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for those of us who have had to grapple with this most difficult and taxing of problems, there was nothing wrong with the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, and that it could have worked perfectly well had all those concerned been willing to behave reasonably and to co-operate? Is it not the case, therefore, that any new proposals will need to command the widest possible support? In that connection, I warmly endorse the position that he has adopted, which is, I think, contrary to that of the leader of the Liberal party, who suggested that this is an occasion to ram legislation on to the statute book immediately. My right hon. and learned Friend is profoundly wise to have a brief period of consultation to see whether he can get wide support for the proposals, which will at least give them a better hope of working.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. He has carried these responsibilities, and I am certain that he is right to point to the pre-eminent importance of getting the will to co-operate, or local agreement. Legislation can play a part, but it can be no substitute for the desire for a sensible and workable means to be achieved whereby the competing rights can be properly balanced. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's approval for the period of consultation that we propose.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has had very distinguished experience as a Law Officer over a number of years, agree that the introduction of a requirement to co-operate with a commission that has a conciliatory and adjudicatory role


before undertaking a sectarian march is a very small price to pay for the privilege of being able to march in that way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not wish to depart from what I said in the statement, but the Government do not express an opinion one way or the other on what I might call the adjudicatory recommendations of the commission. It is self-evident—every hon. Member will agree—that there is a duty on all who wish to undertake a march or who wish to protest against such a march to co-operate with the relevant authorities.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement Will he agree that this is a time for very great caution? It would be unreasonable to impose unnecessary or excessive demands on the organisers of more than 3,100 nationalist and Unionist marches that habitually take place each year without disorder. May I draw his attention in particular to recommendation 20 of the summary of recommendations, which states that the police should retain the power to intervene on public order grounds
in the extreme circumstances of the determination of the Parades Commission being defied".
Does not this subordinate the police to an appointed commission rather than the democratically elected and accountable Government? Is not this a fundamental departure—one that is highly questionable and which some hon. Members may find it hard to accept?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: After nearly five years in this job, I see considerable sense in being generally rather cautious. Equally, there are circumstances when it is important to take hold of an issue and drive it. That is why I have thought it right to embrace and endorse straight away the non-adjudicatory recommendations of the report. It is right that there should be a commission. Naturally, we will want to see how best we can implement some of the matters that fall within that limb of the report. Therefore, whereas the more cautious approach might be to say that we shall consult about the whole boiling. I believe it to be right to take the course that we are taking in that regard.
As for the second limb—the adjudicatory functions—it is right to be cautious. It is, however, right to limit our consultation to a short period—a couple of months. There is an important constitutional position that the Chief Constable has operational responsibility. I shall not express an opinion one way or another; I simply observe that the report recommends that the chief officer on the spot will have the right to override any determination if he considers that his obligation to preserve life makes that necessary.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State agree that since the commencement of the peace process, dating from the Downing street declaration in December 1993, there has been a marked increase in the deterioration of community relations in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the parades issue, for which the report is said to provide a panacea, is only a symptom of a much deeper condition, attributable to the Government's policy, which has unrealistically excited the expectations of the minority community while fuelling the anxiety—some might even say paranoia—of the

majority community that their rights in many aspects of civil life are being gradually eroded? The Government's policy is the cause of the problem.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. I am rather disappointed by that contribution from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that it is factually right that a deterioration in community relations can be observed from the time of the Downing street declaration at the end of 1993. I think that the reverse is the case. There has, unfortunately, been a sharp worsening of community relations since the events of last summer. There is no doubt about that. Everybody that I know of agrees that there has been an increased polarisation and an increase in fear and bad relations between the two sides of the community.
As for the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I think that fear lies at the root of many people's attitudes in Northern Ireland to a great extent. I recognise a fear among Unionists that there is a preordained ratchet process by which they irrevocably come nearer and nearer to what they most fear—the ending of the Union. That fear is not justified, but it exists. There is fear on the other side as well. Again, that fear is not justified in many instances, I believe.
The body recommended setting up a commission to take account of those fears and to give focus to the mediating and conciliatory jobs currently done by people in an unfocused way when a difficult march is incipient. I think that that will be valuable, which is why we have thought it right to endorse it straight away.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most powerful arguments for allowing the proposed Parades Commission to exercise the power to determine a legally binding order on a march is that it would not put the Chief Constable in the invidious position in which he found himself last year?

Mr. Ken Maginnis: That is not right.

Mr. Soley: That Chief Constable was retiring, but had he been newly in position, his position would have become untenable after Drumcree. Perhaps the Secretary of State will remind the Unionist party, from which I am receiving some comments at the moment, that enforcing the rule of law in Northern Ireland is vital and is a first priority for whichever party wins the next election. We shall not shirk that duty. It needs to be made abundantly clear that any challenge to the rule of law that took place last year has enormous implications for the people of Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have had some part in enforcing the rule of law in Northern Ireland since I first became Solicitor-General about 14 years ago, so I endorse the importance of that. I have always held it to be a prime responsibility of the Government. I am not going to get drawn into any evaluation of the merits of the proposal that the commission shall decide these matters. I think that it would be wrong to do so. I want to see what advice is offered. It is a matter of record that the last Chief Constable said that he was fed up with the police having to make decisions in such circumstances. It does not follow from that that it would be wrong or right to endorse the proposal that has been put forward. We want to hear people's views.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State clarify some doubt in my mind? Was there a degree


of economy or of elasticity of the truth when he referred to the Chief Constable having to reverse a decision because of threats? The reality is that the first decision was taken because of threats of violence as well as a suspected input from the Maryfield secretariat. Has he paid particular attention to the review team's comments about the enforcement of the public order order, since it has not been enforced against those who have tried to impede by force legally organised processions? Does he recognise that the authorities in Northern Ireland know long before 21 days about a walk of the institution of which I have been a member for many years. The period of six days was proposed by the House and we have abided by it.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Chief Constable gave a very full account of the events of July and his part in them when he gave an extended interview on BBC radio to Mr. Barry Cowan. It is worth while looking at that. I am pretty sure that I ensured that a transcript was put in the Library, but if I did not, I shall see to it that one is put there.
In the interview, the Chief Constable made it absolutely clear that he took each decision in the light of his professional assessment of the likely disorder that would follow, and that, in particular, the second decision was taken because he could not guarantee that lives would not be lost in circumstances that he reasonably foresaw. I have said before and I repeat, although I do not want us to get into fighting the battles of the past, that I believe that the Chief Constable was right in each of those decisions. We must consider whether we can find a way by which such decisions can be taken in the absence of successful mediation that will be more widely acceptable. Time and again, the report comes back to the need for wide acceptability of mechanisms and procedures.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is it not remarkable that, on the report's principal recommendation, the Government offer no opinion to the House, but say, "We have not come to an opinion. We are going to consult further and then we will come to an opinion"? Is it not rather ridiculous that, on the principal recommendation, the Government are not in any way giving a voice or a lead to people within these islands on what they consider should be the best course of action to take? Are they not in fact dodging the issue and putting it on the back boiler? By virtue of the timetable as laid down by the Secretary of State, even with all the good will in the world from all the other parties to facilitate legislation, we will not have anything in place before, at the earliest, half-way through the marching season, when some of the most dangerous marches will have already taken place.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's second proposition does not follow, and I am afraid that the first really shows that he is a subscriber to the Red Queen style of making decisions: verdict first, evidence afterwards.

Mr. McNamara: You are the Duke of Plaza-Toro!

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thought that I had heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say. He carried some responsibilities for these affairs until he was relieved of them. I prefer to take the advantage of two months' consultation, which would, particularly with good will, leave time for any

resulting legislation to be put in place during the coming summer, when the principally contentious marches are likely to occur.

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State drew attention to the interview given by the former Chief Constable. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us were surprised by the Chief Constable's attitude, but that we have listened with stunned amazement to statements today that the security forces should not be piggy in the middle? It was my impression that we maintained the army and police to be piggy in the middle to protect the law-abiding from the violent, armed conspiracy of the IRA. Is the Secretary of State not yet aware that, until he faces up to the fact that the IRA is committed to ensuring that there is no community agreement, and acts accordingly, he will be in constant trouble over marches? When will he live in the real world instead of the fantasy world that is detailed in the report?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not mind being criticised for what I have said, but I take mild exception to being criticised for what I have not said. I have not said that the security forces should not be piggy in the middle, as the hon. Gentleman put it. Of course it is their unpleasant and dangerous job, if hostilities break out, to keep the peace, and that means being in the middle. We have to discover the best means of ensuring that the security forces do not get engaged in occasions that can take place with enjoyment and peacefully, as the report points out.

Mr. David Winnick: Earlier today at Question Time, the Secretary of State, speaking of Bloody Sunday, said that we should not look back so much as look forward; but do not some of the most provocative and sectarian marches in Northern Ireland commemorate events of centuries ago? As for the IRA, did not Drumcree provide the propaganda that it so desperately requires, as did the terrible and tragic events of Bloody Sunday 25 years ago? Is not that also one of the lessons that we should learn?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: When one looks back at the events of last summer, one can see examples of atrocious behaviour among both sides of the community. A member of the RUC on duty at that time would not have distinguished much difference in unpleasantness between what was thrown by one side or the other. It is in the light of that reflection that we need to look forward. Of course we have to take account of the events of last summer: were it not for those events, this body might not have been asked to do the job that it has been given. We have the report and we should do our best to assess the merits of what it recommends and then take appropriate action.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is it not the case that the report tells us nothing new? It tells us that 80 per cent. of society in Northern Ireland is tolerant of marches and that 80 per cent. is tolerant of protest. International protocols allow for that, anyway. Is it not the case that the 0.03 per cent. aggravation that occurred last year during marches was orchestrated by IRA ex-convicts, Mr. Brendan McKenna and Mr. Gerard Rice? Is not this tome a result of the action of those IRA felons? Would we not get everything out of proportion if we catered for such people in the manner that is suggested?
How will it help the Chief Constable if he disagrees with a recommendation of the commission and he defies the commission and goes to the Secretary of State, who agrees with it? For operational reasons, the Chief Constable would also have to defy the Secretary of State. Where will the Chief Constable's friends be? Will he not be all the more piggy in the middle? Should not we simplify the process by having registration and a code of conduct and letting him get on with the job that he is qualified to do?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That solution is one that can perfectly properly be suggested in the consultation period that I am offering. It is at one end of the spectrum. The hon. Gentleman questions whether the report tells us anything new, but that depends on what one has believed in the past. The trouble with objective truths is that people tend to resist the suggestion that they are true by reference to whichever person happens to be uttering them. The report in any event provides an independent voice to set out matters that we may have known already; at least it is independent and cannot be charged with partisan desires to distort.

Dr. Joe Hendron: My father is buried in the Catholic graveyard at Drumcree, so I understand the situation there well. The Secretary of State will recall the meeting that I had with him on the evening of 12 July regarding the parade to be held the next day on the Ormeau road. I know that he will agree that the people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, and in some areas more than others, are deeply concerned about what might happen this summer.
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I appreciate his point about two months' consultation Like others, I would have thought that most of the consultation was already done, but I accept his point that he will consult party leaders and others. Surely a few weeks—perhaps until the end of February—would be long enough for such consultations, and a Bill could then be introduced to enact the necessary legislation. I believe that that is what the people of both communities would want, so that the matter can be settled before the general election.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I recall the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I also recall his genuine concern and the helpful way in which he always approaches such matters. It is a matter of judgment: I believe that less than two months would not be realistic if one wants seriously to test opinion and to use the results in a helpful way. It is essential that whatever we do should carry the best prospect of acceptability, and that will be the case if we have a tightly focused, time-limited two-month period of consultation on that aspect of the report.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Secretary of State is being criticised by those on both sides of the argument in Northern Ireland, does he feel that he has just about got it right? His response is not negative; it is to accept one limb of the argument—the seven principles in

the conclusion—and to have time-limited discussions in connection with the second limb. Many might think that that was just about the right approach in the extremely difficult circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland.
Among the matters to be discussed in that eight-week period will be the triggering mechanism for specific marches to be examined. The report says that such examination is to be triggered by the police, the commission or the public. A great deal of attention needs to be paid to which groups of the public trigger the provisions and to whether they are genuinely representative, or bogus groups set up for the purpose.
Perhaps wider principles, such as a Bill of Rights guaranteeing human rights, should be thought about in the process, even if at a later stage.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The ideal is not to be criticised from both sides of the spectrum, but to be applauded from both sides. However, if one is so criticised, one can take some comfort from the possibility that one has got it right, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inferring that he thinks that we have. The trigger is a difficult one. Someone suggested to me that there is a danger that one is simply creating a factory for grievances. We do not want to do that. The report makes it clear that in the vast majority of parades it would not be appropriate for the commission to be involved. One of the functions of the consultation period is to consider the appropriate trigger.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I refrain from applauding him on this occasion. May I remind him that Dr. North, who is not regarded as a radical legal thinker, lists in appendix 1 those persons and bodies providing submissions and contributions to the review team. The list runs to six pages. Is it the Secretary of State's intention to invite those persons and bodies to submit their considered opinions of the findings in the report? If that is not his intention and he intends to consult others, why will it take two months? Why not a month, as the hon. Member for Belfast. West (Dr. Hendron) suggested, so that legislation can pass through the House?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We can argue whether it should be one month, six weeks, two months, three months or whatever. It is left at large and one has to make a judgment. Of course I do not intend to consult everyone who appears in appendix 1. I have said that it is right for public representatives and those who lead bodies that are directly interested in the subject to express their views on that aspect of the commission's report. There was a time when most people, not least in the Liberal party, thought that it was rather a good thing to take soundings. That is what I wish to do. I do not wish to incur the additional charge that I am adopting, hook, line and sinker and without even a couple of months of consultation a radical departure that also has certain constitutional connotations. If I did not adopt this course, it would be a charge properly brought.

Food Safety

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on arrangements for handling food safety.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are announcing today, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Government's intention to create an independent food safety council, whose chairman will be our main adviser on food safety.
The council will advise Ministers on food safety and related matters. Its membership will be drawn from a wide range of fields with an interest in the safety of the food supply. It will include both scientific experts and lay members, including consumers. The council and the food safety adviser will report jointly to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, for Scotland and for Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and myself as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Our intention is that the council and the adviser should be free to advise on any matters related to the safety, quality, labelling and authenticity of food. They should also be available as an authoritative source of advice to the general public. The council will make an annual report to Ministers, which will be laid before Parliament. The conclusions of its meetings will be published, as will any other formal reports that it may make to Ministers.
Those arrangements will strengthen the existing network of advisory committees, but will not detract from the role of the individual expert committees. The food safety adviser will work closely with the chief medical officers. Although reporting to Ministers, he or she will not be a civil servant.
In addition, I have today formally appointed the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, as adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on public health matters. That formalises arrangements that, in practice, have applied for many years. That appointment took place today. We will be making all the other appointments to which I referred—the council and the chairman—after the general election.
These measures will provide an important strengthening of the arrangements for handling food safety matters in this country. Our proposals will introduce a valuable new element of independent oversight, while retaining the vital principle that food safety must be a matter on which Ministers are directly accountable to the House. The new arrangements will provide for independent advice, publicly given, from a source that the public can trust and will help to assure consumers that they can be confident in the safety and quality of their food. I commend those arrangements to the House.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread agreement with his quite explicit statement today that the general public have lost confidence in the Government on food safety issues? I remind him that, in the face of arguments from bodies

such as the Consumers Association and the Labour party, he and his predecessors persistently argued that the present arrangements were right and that no change was required. Indeed, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that our calls for change were "public relations nonsense."
However, I put it to the Minister that the new arrangements he is proposing today are inadequate. As far as the official Opposition are concerned, they are no substitute for an open and independent food standards agency with real authority. A food safety adviser and a part-time council will command neither the resources nor the authority to effectively tackle these important issues.
May I put three short questions to the Minister? First, why have the Government changed their minds and decided that the machinery of government in this area now needs to be changed? Why have they accepted that argument? Secondly, what resources will the council and the food safety adviser control to support them in their tasks? Thirdly, can he confirm that the Government do not intend to implement any of these proposals this side of the general election?
Finally, I put it to the Minister that, while public relations and presentation matter in this area, what is really important is the need to effectively tackle the underlying issues—issues such as avoiding the huge BSE-CJD crisis and preventing the recent tragic loss of life from E. coli in central Scotland. Not only are these belated proposals inadequate, but every day it becomes clearer that neither the Minister nor the Government are up to the task of tackling effectively these desperately important food safety issues.

Mr. Hogg: As I said in my statement, it is our intention to make the appointments, other than that of Sir Kenneth Calman, after the general election.
Let us understand the reasons why we are taking this action. It is perfectly true that the public have become cautious—indeed, sceptical—when Ministers and officials identified with the Departments talk about food safety. There are a variety of reasons for that feeling, and although, in my view, it is quite unfounded, it is a fact, and we have to address facts of that nature. My Department already has access to a range of independent professional advice, but what is important now is to try to set out a set of institutions that make those facts plain and are capable of reassuring the public.
The Labour party's position, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, is to propose an agency; but let us examine what he is talking about. It amounts to this: first, that the agency is to be accountable to Ministers—that is the desire of the House—but, secondly, that it is to be the implementing executive authority. In other words, it would be commenting on policies that it had implemented itself. It would have every reason, therefore, to defend that which it was implementing.
Our proposals are much more imaginative than that, because what we have done is to separate the functions. Ministers remain responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy; they have to explain policy and, when necessary, defend it. The council and the adviser have a different role: they are independent—they are not civil servants—they are free-standing, and they are not responsible for the implementation of policy. They can therefore stand back and, in a public and authoritative


way, comment on the general issues and then, if they want to, criticise the implementation of policy as done by Ministers. That is done consciously and intentionally to create a rod for our own back. That is what we intend to do.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Has the Minister actually read the Pennington report on the E. coli outbreak in my constituency, which was the immediate trigger for this change of front on the part of the Government? Professor Pennington recommended that the outbreak control team should be independent of the health board and of the local authority, and that it should be headed by a person who can make decisions. If that is true of the agency delivering the service in the event of an outbreak, how much more true is it of the advice and recommendations to Ministers in the planning of the process?

Mr. Hogg: In the first place, the E. coli outbreak is not the trigger for my announcement today. This policy has been in formulation for many months.
One needs to go to the essential reason why we are introducing the proposals; it is to recognise that there is a public scepticism about what Ministers and officials say about food safety. What we want to do is separate the functions so that Ministers remain responsible for policy, its formulation and implementation, and for that they are accountable to the House, which is the proper place for them to be accountable.
At the same time, and separate from that, we are setting up an authoritative, independent and prestigious body which will express views in a public way on the general questions of food safety, and will also, if it so chooses, express views on narrower questions relating to the implementation of policy. By dividing the functions, we have brought about a very high degree of reassurance.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the majority of hon. Members who look at this matter sensibly will accept that it is right and proper that steps should be taken to ensure that public confidence can, at all times, be restored in the way in which the bodies he announced will set out to do? It does little credit to the Opposition when they attempt to turn this into a political slanging match. Will he give an assurance, however, that it is not the intention that the measures announced should be a criticism of the agriculture industry, whose members have striven so hard to try to rectify the problems in the past?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the generous way in which he has received the proposals. The agriculture industry, along with many other interest groups, will be represented on the council, but in the end it will be for the council to determine into which matters it wishes to inquire and what its views are. To that extent, I cannot fetter in any way the council's discretion; nor would I wish to do so. Public reassurance and confidence depends on the independence of the council and the adviser and the regard in which they are held by the public as a whole.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister has on several occasions today admitted honestly that the public perceive him his Government colleagues and his

scientific advisers to be basically untrustworthy and incredible on matters of food safety; I acknowledge that he recognises that fact. However, given that he is making this announcement in the form of an election promise and not for immediate action, why does he believe that that perception will now be transformed?

Mr. Hogg: We are all in the business of facing facts, and, after the experience of the past 12 months regarding BSE, it would be idle and foolish for me not to accept that the public do not have the degree of confidence that I would like them to have and which I believe would be justified, when Ministers and officials associated with Departments talk about food safety. They do not, and that is a fact; and we must address that issue.
We have tried to create a separation of powers, a separation of functions, which is reassuring in itself, and we are determined to ensure that the people appointed to the council generally and to the post of adviser are people of great distinction—not civil servants, not beholden to the Government of the day, not beholden to Departments, but distinguished people who carry the authority of their own knowledge and standing among their peers. I believe that that will have a profound effect, for the good, on public confidence.

Mr. John Greenway: Can my right hon. and learned friend think of anything that might have been done over the last 10 years, had the special adviser already been in post? Is it not a fact that the Government have always sought the very best scientific advice and that that will continue under the new arrangement, but that, if it helps to give the public and the consumer greater reassurance about the safety of British food—which is the best in the world—that is all to the good?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because a range of very important independent advisory committees already exists. The best known is the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, whose chairman. Professor Pattison, is a man of the greatest distinction. We have relied heavily on the advice of those advisory committees, and on SEAC in particular, regarding BSE. However, what we have in mind goes beyond the area covered by the specialist committees, will be more general in its scope and will be a great deal more public, and that is our intention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have listened carefully to the Minister. Who will have the final say as to who is appointed to the council? Will it be the fiefdom of Sir Kenneth Calman, a highly regarded individual, or will there be a ministerial input as to who will serve on the council? Who will pay for the council, and what is the estimated budget?

Mr. Hogg: As I said in my statement, the council will be appointed by my right hon. Friends. A number of my right hon. Friends are appointing Secretaries of State or Ministers for these purposes. Ultimately, the Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for example, and myself—will make the appointment, but it is in our interests to appoint people of standing and authority who will command respect.
Few people in the House who know anything about it would criticise the membership of our various advisory sub-committees, such as the Advisory Committee on


Microbiological Safety of Food, the Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and so on. I believe that everyone would accept that the membership of those specialist committees is a good one. SEAC is well known to the House, and Professor Pattison is a man of great distinction.
We intend to ensure that the membership of the council is as distinguished as we can make it, because it is in our interests that that should be the case.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. and learned friend agree that, if he were to appoint someone with the independence, professionalism and appropriate expertise of successive chief medical officers of health, it would go a long way to reassure consumers and increase confidence? Has not that confidence been eroded in recent years by so-called food experts, who make outrageous statements, which are worked up by the media and are very difficult for him and his colleagues to disprove?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point in the latter part of his question. As to the former part, the status of the chief medical officer is a good analogy. It is not quite the same, but it is very similar to the concept that we have in mind. I believe that most hon. Members would accept that, when the chief medical officer speaks, he speaks with real independence and authority. We are seeking to create someone very similar in connection with food safety.
We are likely to appoint as food safety adviser a scientist or someone from that type of background, rather than a generalist such as a lawyer, an official or even, dare I say it, a former Member of the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that, in the view of Sir David Carter, the chief medical officer of Scotland, and Professor Pennington, some of the most useful and constructive elements on E. coli came from West Lothian council, represented by Crawford Morgan and Alec Campbell, because they had knowledge of the first major outbreak—the Red House Dairy outbreak? Will the Minister ask whoever is appointed, at a very early stage, to ask West Lothian council to present its detailed and constructive views on E. coli?

Mr. Hogg: That goes outwith the scope of the statement, but I am sure that the food safety adviser, the chairman of the council, will in due time have his attention drawn to all relevant matters, which might include the point made by the hon. Gentleman; in any event, it might be possible for the hon. Gentleman, if he wins his seat, to put those points to the chairman of the council.

Mr. James Couchman: I welcome the appointment of the council. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), I too am anxious that the scaremongers who have caused huge damage to our food industry over recent years do not talk themselves on to the council.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say precisely how the people serving on the council will be recruited? Will it be by public advertisement and after due consultation?

Mr. Hogg: I draw a slight distinction for these purposes, if I might, between the chairman and the council members. It is likely that, in the case of the chairman of the council, the food safety adviser, we shall advertise publicly, but we may also employ headhunters. For council members, it is very likely that we shall advertise publicly; we may also go through the appropriate channels for suggestions.
We are very anxious that the council, with its chairman, should be seen to be a prestigious, independent body, so we shall seek candidates who command respect.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is this the Government's response to the call made earlier this month by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland for a food safety body that commands the support and confidence of consumers? Cannot the Minister grasp the fact that we do not need just another advisory council? What consumers and every part of the industry require, and what Parliament should demand, is an effective food safety agency with executive power to control the whole issue.

Mr. Hogg: A moment's reflection will make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is infinitely better than what he just suggested. I suspect that he is suggesting three things, although he only said two. He wants an agency with executive responsibility. He wants that agency to explain and justify the safety of food, explaining and justifying the actions that have been taken by the agency. It would be fair to say that he would like the agency to be accountable to Ministers.
The problem—or one of the problems—with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that the agency, on his model, would be responsible, not only for implementing policy, but for justifying and defending it. That does not seem to me to be a very sensible way to proceed, because the agency would have every incentive to justify that which it had done.
We are proposing a separation of functions: the Minister is responsible for the formulation, defence and explanation of policy, but others who are not responsible for the formulation of policy and have no inherent reason to defend it will tell the public their opinion, first as to the generality of the question and, secondly, as to any specific points relating to policy that the council and the adviser might choose.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whichever party is in power, a strong Ministry of Food and Agriculture is necessary? If it were replaced, as the Labour party suggests, by one Minister of State in the Department of the Environment and one in the Department of Health, our standing in Europe would be further diminished. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the general public, apart from the food fascists, need much reassurance, and that the appointment will reassure the public that much of what we do is the best in Europe, and will identify the necessary adjustments?

Mr. Hogg: Both parts of my hon. Friend's question are very sound. Let me focus on the first part, regarding the


status of the Minister of Agriculture. From time to time, the Labour party has suggested downgrading the status of the Minister of Agriculture to that of a Minister of State. That would be a grave error, because the pressures in Europe for the reform of the common agricultural policy are great and will gather speed.
It is vital that the interests of British agriculture are properly represented at the Agriculture Council. All the Ministers at the Agriculture Council are of Cabinet level. If the Opposition argue for the status of the British Minister of Agriculture to be diminished, the interests of British agriculture will be gravely damaged

Ms Jean Corston: Can the Minister tell the House why it has taken the Government so long to announce the setting up of such a puny and inadequate body in response to concerns that go beyond BSE, E. coli and baby milk, and encompass issues such as Alar in apple juice, salmonella in eggs, organophosphates in root vegetables, listeria in cheese—the list goes on? Does he not understand that a part-time food safety adviser is no substitute for an independent food standards agency to reassure the public, particularly people who are bringing up children and want to do the best for them, and to enforce the rights of consumers to enjoy the best standards of food hygiene and safety?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady has not thought through the policy that she or those on her Front Bench are trying to put across. Their concept of an agency involves at least two elements: first, that the agency is responsible for implementing food safety policy, and secondly, that the agency is responsible for reassuring the public as to the success of the policy that it itself has introduced and implemented.
That system would not reassure the public. Such an agency would have every incentive, personal and political, to justify the action that it has previously taken. What we are doing is much more dramatic. We are separating the functions, so that the food safety council or the adviser can say publicly to the House or to the public at large that Ministers have got it wrong, if that is the council's considered view.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all Conservative Members wish him well with his latest development of policy? It is important that we reassure consumers of food safety and of the value of the product. Can he assure the House that, in arriving at today's announcement, he and his ministerial colleagues and officials carefully considered the example of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, to see whether any appropriate lessons could be learnt from that structure and approach? Many of my constituents would favour that model.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Yes, indeed, we did look at a number of models, and at the Food and Drug Administration in particular. The FDA is not quite as some people think it is. For example, meat and poultry safety in the United States is the responsibility not of the FDA. but of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister reflect on my experience in dealing with his Ministry on a relevant

matter? Following unsatisfactory correspondence in 1995, I raised during the March BSE debate the unsatisfactory situation in regard to contaminated and condemned meat. The Ministry seemed to be negligently complacent about the matter, although it may now have begun to realise that a serious problem exists.
My local authority has taken the lead on behalf of several others, and has incurred enormous costs in pursuing the matter in the interests of public health. When the council approached the Department of the Environment the other day for support because of the enormous costs that it has incurred, it received short shrift.
Does the Minister understand that those of us who are aware of the problem will wonder how he can find the resources for yet another quango, and deny them to those who do not need imagination because they are—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is a very long question.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's comments sound like a criticism of the much more expensive policies for an agency advanced by those on his Front Bench, or a request for additional public spending. On the first part of his question, the fact that he was able to raise the matter with Ministers, and the fact that, under our system, they are accountable demonstrate the good sense of our approach.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the public will take the view that, every time there is a crisis, the Government make up their approach to food safety as they go along? With BSE, E. coli, and even dioxins about eight years ago, some of us called for a separation of duties. The problem with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that it is linked to the rich farming lobby. Until there is a separation of duties, the public will understand that the Tory party running the Ministry cares only about the rich farmers who line its pockets and vote for it.

Mr. Hogg: In rather a convoluted way, I think the hon. Gentleman is giving me his support. As I have explained to the House, we are separating the functions in a dramatic way. We are making a division between the function of formulating and carrying through policy, which will be the responsibility of Ministers accountable to the House, and the function of the council, which will be to form views on food safety and related matters, and to communicate them publicly to the country, to Parliament and elsewhere. That division of functions is at the heart of our proposals—and incidentally, is denied by Members on the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I urge a little humility on the Minister when he replies to questions? After all, he has an awful lot to be humble about, in terms of his recent track record. Does he not grasp the fact that no one will believe that any food safety organisation or committee will be genuinely impartial if it must report to a Minister in a producing Department such as his?
Unless the consumer and the producer are kept separate, no one will believe that a Minister such as himself is not primarily concerned with the interests of the


producer. Although I do not expect him to be the Minister reporting to the House on appointments, can he tell us what sector of the economy he expects the new chairman to come from? Will the animal welfare organisations be involved? It is the way in which we have been treating animals that has led to so many diseases creeping into the human food chain.

Mr. Hogg: There is a pleasing irony in the hon. Gentleman urging me to be humble. Nevertheless, I shall take advice whence it comes.
On the broad question, we have every interest in choosing as members of the council independent-minded, prestigious people who speak with real authority. We have every interest, too, in ensuring that the chairman of the council is such a person, so that he or she speaks with real authority when expressing opinions. The chairman and the council will be under a duty to go public with their views. For example, they will make an annual report to Ministers, which will be laid before Parliament, and the conclusions of their meetings and of any formal reports that they may make during the year will be published. Those people will have authority because of their background and experience. They will also wish to be judged well by their peers, and I think that that will greatly enhance the authority of their pronouncements.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am prepared to take questions from those hon. Members who are already standing, but perhaps the questions could be shorter and snappier.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is this not an entirely fraudulent proposal, given the Government's neglect of food safety enforcement? Is it not a fact that, in 1992, environmental health officers served 22,000 improvement notices, but that in 1995 that figure plummeted to 2,000—barely one tenth of its former level? Next Monday, the House will consider the revenue support grant settlement.

Why do the Government propose to cut the other services block that directly affects the resourcing of environmental health departments up and down the country? Let the Minister answer this point—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked for short and snappy questions. I call Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Hogg: To be short and snappy: the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Minister studied the incident that occurred in the United States in 1989, when 37 people died and 1,500 were disabled after eating a food supplement that had been genetically modified and which contained a toxin previously unknown to science? Why has genetically modified food been mixed with other food in this country so that it cannot be identified?
Although Asda and Iceland have said that they will ban genetically modified food, they cannot deliver on that promise because of the mix-up. Genetically modified food in confectionary form is on sale within the Palace. This experiment with human health is being carried out not for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of foreign companies' profits. Will the Minister give an assurance that, in future, consumers may choose between foods that are genetically modified and those that are not, as they cannot do so at present?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions are getting long again.

Mr. Hogg: I know that there is concern about genetically modified foodstuffs. However, it is a general issue, and I shall not elaborate in the context of this question. The fact that there is much public anxiety about genetically modified foodstuffs underlines the importance of our proposal. The Food Safety Council would be in a position to address precisely that question—together with related questions of labelling and so forth—and to make its views known to the House and to the public at large. That is a very powerful argument as to why we should adopt that policy.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill.
Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [4th allotted day].
Until about 7 pm, a debate on health. Followed by a debate on investing in early years, primary and secondary education. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
[Monday 3 February—Relevant Reports: Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98; Special Grant Report (No. 23); Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1997–98.
Wednesday 5 February—Relevant Reports: Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98; Special Grant Report (Wales) 1997; Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1997–98.
Wednesday 12 February: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 5217/97, Commission Report on Raw Tobacco Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 5147/96. Takeover Bids. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-xxix (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).] Madam Deputy Speaker, I regret that, once again, I am unable to go much beyond the business for the first week—but at least it makes the business statement shorter and snappier.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of Madam Speaker's statement on Tuesday—which was widely welcomed on both sides of the House—about Parliament being brought into disrepute by sleaze allegations involving a small number of hon. Members, will the Lord President, in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, confirm to the House that that Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are working flat out to try to

conclude all outstanding matters as soon as possible? I am sure that such confirmation would not constitute a breach of the confidentiality of the Committee.
The House will have noted that there is to be a debate next week on the Royal Air Force. While I am sure that no one objects to it, will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers who speak in the debate are able to explain in detail the possible consequences for the RAF and other parts of the defence budget of the Government's decision to spend £60 million of taxpayers' money on the new royal yacht?
Will the Leader of the House comment on the point of order that was raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) regarding the answering of written parliamentary questions? The Leader of the House may know that that parliamentary question has now been answered, but hon. Members should not have to make points of order in the House to elicit answers from Ministers. In view of my experience, can he say whether the normal convention of Ministers always meeting hon. Members to discuss local matters remains operational, following two refusals by Education Ministers to meet a delegation from Mirfield in my constituency?
Can time be found in the near future for a debate on an issue that the Leader of the House did not cover in his statement: the consequences of bus deregulation? I draw his attention to a report entitled "Making Connections" which was published yesterday and which the Yorkshire Evening Post summarised as saying:
bus services will never improve while profits are put ahead of customers
As the Secretary of State for the Environment co-chaired the body that wrote the report, surely the House should debate the matter.
Finally, in view of his answers in recent weeks, has the Leader of the House considered making space in our Question Time rota for questions to the member of the Government who is usually known as the chairman of the Conservative party? If the Leader of the House cannot provide precise information today about the Wirral, South by-election, can the chairman of the Conservative party come to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I, like other hon. Members, welcomed the measured and balanced way in which Madam Speaker commented on Monday on behalf of the House on an issue about which we all feel strongly. Understandably, the hon. Lady asked me, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—she is a distinguished member of that body—to confirm that the Committee is making every effort to conclude consideration of the various matters before us. I certainly confirm that—with the wholehearted support of all Committee members. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is also playing an active role. Many of the matters are complex and extremely important and they must be considered properly, but we shall proceed with all possible speed.
I cannot predict the contents of the speech of the Minister who will speak in the Royal Air Force debate, as I have not discussed it with him. However, I shall draw to his attention the hon. Lady's point about what she would like to be in it.
The hon. Lady referred to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Perry Bar, who I see sitting, diligently, beside her. The hon. Gentleman knows that I took action as soon as he raised his point of order to ensure that, by the end of the day, his question had been answered. Indeed, he has received a letter of apology from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. The implication of that is clear. I accept, of course, that such errors should not occur and that we should make every effort to avoid them. I think that it is clear from my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman that he, too, accepts that. To put it simply and straightforwardly, it was an error. Every effort will be made to prevent such an error occurring again.
In the end, individual Ministers must make judgments in particular circumstances on whether to meet delegations. I understand why the hon. Lady has raised the matter. I am not in a position to comment in detail, because I was hitherto unaware of the facts that she stated. I shall ensure that her concern is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
I have not yet had a chance to study the report on bus deregulation. I have, however, seen some of the press reports. The Government's position is that we welcome the independent report. We shall be studying the recommendations carefully.
I thought that the hon. Lady gave a rather unbalanced account of the bus industry, but I shall not go on about that at length. There is no doubt, however—it is certainly observable in the areas with which I am concerned—that deregulation and privatisation have brought a great deal of innovation, including new types of bus, which in many instances have provided greater flexibility. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have mentioned that investment by the industry in new buses has increased in each of the past four years.
Finally, I shall take up the hon. Lady's rather ingenious point about the Wirral, South by-election. I am not in a position to add to what I said last week, which I accept was not very much. I have no plans for making changes in the questions rota for the remainder of the Parliament.

Sir Peter Emery: During next week, will my right hon. Friend recall the statement made by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench, about the need to work for simplification of tax law? Will he consider that the Procedure Committee has now reported on a procedure that should, perhaps, be used to bring about simplification? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Opposition spokesman to ascertain whether a debate can be held—and perhaps action taken—fairly soon to ensure that that procedure is in place so that the work on simplification can proceed immediately in a new Parliament?

Mr. Newton: I think that I might reveal that my right hon. Friend had already marked my card on that matter. He did so less formally last night. In my usual way, I offered a cautious but sympathetic reply. I shall offer again this afternoon, more formally, a cautious but sympathetic reply.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, may I acknowledge the Opposition day on Wednesday, which the Leader of the House has arranged, to which we look forward?
Before we get into the general election campaign, will it be possible to have a debate on the independence of the Office for National Statistics, which is regularly accused of being led by the Government and doing the Government's bidding, but probably no more so than in the article today that suggests that, yesterday, it had prepared for the Department of Health, at the Department's request, statistics about health service spending which showed that official spending on the health service had decreased by £1 billion in the past three years? As the office was required to produce the information for "Social Trends", to be published today, and it was spotted yesterday, a new document was produced which showed that NHS spending had increased in the past three years.
There is decreasing credibility in an office of government that is open to manipulation by the governing party of the day. Whichever party is in power, it is important that offices of information and statistics are independent of any political party and able to provide independent facts, both for politicians and for the public.

Mr. Newton: I do not accept that there has been any manipulation. Independent or otherwise, the office is as capable of making mistakes as any other. This morning, the author of "Social Trends" said:
The original chart was incorrect … we found we had been using the wrong figures".

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say anything about a debate on the integrity of the United Kingdom? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 464, and express the hope that the Government will give a speedy passage to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, which would protect the rights of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, and which has completed all its stages in another place?
[That this House welcomes the passage of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill through the House of Lords; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure the speedy completion of its remaining stages so that approximately 5000 ethnic minority non-Chinese living in Hong Kong can apply for British citizenship and the right of abode in the United Kingdom as a recognition of their contribution to the life of Hong Kong and their loyalty to the Crown, and in order to give them the same degree of security as those who have either full British citizenship or Chinese nationality.]

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to the generally sympathetic reply that I gave my hon. Friend last week. As I have already said, at present I am not able to go beyond Monday 10 February in giving an indication of business. I continue, however, to bear the wish to have such a debate very much in mind.
I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. I should make it clear that the position of ethnic minorities is already adequately safeguarded, in our view, by the guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in March 1996.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To take up the first issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury


(Mrs. Taylor), we do not doubt that "every effort" is being made, "at all possible speed" to draw the matter to a conclusion. We know, however, that battalions of lawyers are involved. It is a Jarndyce v. Jarndyce situation.
I am one of the few who was in this place at the time of Profumo, when Iain Macleod was the Leader of the House. Iain Macleod, in his position, summoned colleagues to ask them some very direct questions. Once present colleagues have answered the very direct questions posed by the programme and the book "Sleaze"—it was written by David Leigh and Ed Vulliamy—two things can happen. Either they admit that what is said is true, in which case certain consequences follow, or they do not. If they do not, they must be asked to go to lawyers.
The question then arises about payment for lawyers. That is something that the House had better consider. There is no hope under the present system of getting—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I invite the hon. Member and all others to put their points in question form.

Mr. Newton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling. I must make the point, however, that it is not much more than a year since the House, after the work of a Select Committee, which I chaired, had an extensive debate and put in place the revised machinery for investigating complaints about hon. Members. The important independent ingredient—as many people thought—was injected by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. In the first instance, it is for the commissioner to investigate complaints and then to report to the Select Committee, which can take evidence if it wishes to do so. It would be wrong to seek to interfere with those processes in the middle of an investigation. If we sought to revise those processes substantially, that would lead only to further delay.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on education? Has he read the report in tonight's Evening Standard, in which it is stated that 43 per cent. of parents in Islington have followed the lead of the pied piper of Islington and opted to have their children educated outside the local comprehensive schools? Does not that demonstrate the poor standards in Islington, the merits of choice as introduced by the Government and the hypocrisy of those who voted against the expansion of grant-maintained schools earlier this week?

Mr. Newton: Happily, those on the Liberal Benches have arranged for just such a debate next week. I look forward, subject to his catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend's vigorous contribution.

Dr. John Marek: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 457, which is headed "Wrexham Central Station and Railtrack"?
[That this House deplores the attempt by Railtrack to close Wrexham Central Station in a bid to increase profits from the development of surrounding land; notes the findings of the RUCC for Wales following a recent public inquiry that the closure of the station and its replacement

by one some 400 yards further away from Wrexham town centre would cause hardship to the town and to rail users and should not be allowed to go ahead; further notes that Railtrack has ignored these recommendations and is seeking to persuade the Rail Regulator not to accept the RUCC findings; and calls on Railtrack to abandon its closure proposals, produce plans for development keeping Wrexham Central Station roughly in its present central position and to start behaving in a manner suitable to that of a rail company and not a property company.]
The motion was tabled today and has already succeeded in attracting 113 signatures. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the motion, he will find that Railtrack is seeking to make development profits for its shareholders at the expense of the travelling public. The matter is serious, because we need to preserve our railway system. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to find some time before the Session ends for a debate on the important matter to which the motion refers?

Mr. Newton: I rather doubt that I shall be able to find time for such a debate, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday 10 February. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman will know that procedures are laid down in the Railways Act 1993 that cover matters such as the one that he has raised. Anyone who is aggrieved by a decision made by the Rail Regulator has a right to refer that decision to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is thus in a quasi-judicial position and would be unable now to comment on the merits or otherwise of such a case.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend find time to have a debate next week on extradition? Is he aware of a tragic case earlier this week? The Devon and Cornwall police had arranged for a murder suspect to be under surveillance in Australia, but the suspect committed suicide. Is he also aware of the numerous examples of the failure of other European countries to extradite terrorist suspects when there is considerable evidence against them? Is it not high time that we exposed the lack of co-operation between European Union countries on this key issue, which is of enormous importance to all our citizens?

Mr. Newton: I am unable to comment on the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall be happy to draw his concerns and the points that he made to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the use made by Government Departments of postcode areas to collect information and to decide on the distribution of awards and grants? Post-code areas are for the administrative convenience of the Post Office, but their extensive use by Government Departments creates anomalies. For instance, the S12 and S18 areas in my constituency have not been triggered for cold weather payments, but the neighbouring S31, and the S42 and S44, which are further away, were triggered before Christmas because of the weather conditions. Different areas are linked to different stations. Some hold the peculiar belief that areas with a low number, such as


S12 and S18, are part of South Yorkshire and are not in Derbyshire. That confusion is in the minds of Government Departments and not in the Post Office's mind.

Mr. Newton: It is five years since I was responsible for the detailed administration of the cold weather payments scheme and, given the hon. Gentleman's question, I am relieved about that. I shall ensure that those of my right hon. Friends who are currently responsible for the scheme have their attention draw to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Can my right hon. Friend find time for perhaps a small debate in the near future on the need for objective, continuous and reliable data on economic and social issues in order to develop sound policy? That would give the House an opportunity to make the case for the continuation rather than the scrapping of the general household survey.

Mr. Newton: That question came up last week. I shall not seek to add to the comments that I made at that time. I note my hon. Friend's question as, I am sure, will my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Notwithstanding the debate on education that is due to take place next week, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—to make a statement in the House to explain the extraordinary events that took place earlier today? He was unceremoniously ordered off the premises of one of the country's leading grammar schools, Wirral grammar school for girls, when his by-election stunt went disastrously wrong. Given that that Minister is responsible for security and discipline in our schools, he has shown himself to be manifestly unfit to represent the Government.

Mr. Newton: I see no reason to accept the hon. Lady's somewhat tendentious account. Although I am aware that there seems to have been some confusion on the site this morning, I have not seen a detailed report of what occurred, and I do not propose to comment further without more information.

Mr. David Shaw: Would it be appropriate to have a debate on whether the United Kingdom should adopt American practice and require party political leaders to disclose their medical records? We saw today the Leader of the Opposition collapse in a fit at the end of his question. It was worrying to hear him shouting into the air the words, "Weak, weak, weak, weak," as he collapsed. That is surely an indication that the Leader of the Opposition's mental state should be examined at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Tony Banks: At least he has more hair than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Newton: I think that it is by now observable that I do my best to maintain a relatively non-partisan approach as Leader of the House. My wisest course, therefore, is to acknowledge my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and

Employment on the crisis in further education? The Leader of the House will recall that, this time last week, I told him about the 37 redundancies at Nelson and Colne college. It is now perfectly clear from the annual report of the Further Education Funding Council that the crisis is systemic, and that more than 200 further education colleges are moving into deficit. This is an important issue, and the Secretary of State should come to the House to explain herself.
When I raised this matter last Thursday, the Leader of the House invited me to raise the matter with the Secretary of State during Education questions yesterday. I got to my feet 14 times, but tragically I did not catch Madam Speaker's eye. People in my constituency want to know what the Secretary of State will do about this problem.

Mr. Newton: It is probably unwise of me to do so, but I suggest that this is a matter for the Chair and not for me. In view of what I have heard since I came into the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman may improve his chances by reducing the length of his questions. I cannot add to the steer that I gave him last week. However, I express my sympathy to him for the fact that he was not called yesterday.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: As it will be some time before we discuss the Police Bill in this House, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week to allay the growing fears of Roman Catholic priests, and priests, ministers and pastors of other denominations, who are concerned about the implications of the police's bugging powers under the Bill for the seal of confession or the traditional pastoral counselling given by ministers of religion to their flocks? There is a fear that, unless the Bill contains an explicit exemption to protect the seal of confession and counselling by ministers of religion, there will be a great temptation for police who are trying to get a prosecution to bug those confidential discussions. That confidentiality has been honoured by the state since time immemorial.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers and, indeed, by some others. Equally, he will be clear that the concerns expressed in the other place are being carefully considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot predict what conclusions he will reach.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the Leader of the House comment on two Bills that are making progress in the other place; the Protection from Harassment Bill and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which are important to hon. Members and to the country? What is happening with those Bills? Is it true that the delay in the House of Lords is due to the actions of the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is interesting: it had not previously been drawn to my attention. As the Liberal Democrats support those Bills, that would be strange and require a bit of explaining. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is normally thought inappropriate for Ministers in this place to comment on the progress of business in the other place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will the writ for the Wirral, South by-election be moved? It is odd that


we are told in the press that it will be this day or that day. Is it not important to take this matter into account when Ministers, one of whom is responsible for discipline in education, go up to Wirral, invade a girls school playground, act like intruders and have to be unceremoniously bundled out by the headmaster? Is it not time that the by-election was put on a proper footing, so that it can be conducted with due decorum?

Mr. Newton: That was a somewhat curious mix of questions and comment. I have already made such comment as I am able to at this stage in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), and I do not think that I will go beyond that in response to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the need to reduce the salaries of Education Ministers? It is not only in Dewsbury that Ministers appear to be demob-happy. In Newport, the local council has sought an interview with the appropriate Minister in the Welsh Office to discuss a £3 million shortfall in the education budget, which is entirely the Government's fault, but the Minister has refused to speak to the council. That is extraordinary behaviour. I assume that Ministers have cleared their desks; if they have, and are not doing their jobs, their salaries should be cut—or they should be told to carry on with their jobs.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to do other than repeat more or less what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury but, in the same spirit, I shall ensure that the attention of Welsh Office Ministers is drawn to their concern.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 447?
[That this House is concerned at the development of surrogate childbirth; believes that, whilst it is acceptable for surrogacy to be available in cases where natural conception and childbirth is not possible, it is unacceptable for surrogacy to be extended to commercial transactions or for the sake of personal convenience; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to allow a full debate on the moral and ethical implications of surrogacy.]
Although I am personally in favour of surrogacy in respect of couples with physical problems, moral and ethical considerations clearly need to be taken into account, especially in cases in which it may be economically convenient for one partner or the other to "rent a womb". There are considerable causes for disquiet here. As the matter is being discussed outside the House, surely we should debate it in the House.

Mr. Newton: These are matters of great debate and concern among a wide range of people. Such issues are normally dealt with on a free vote in the House. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health looks carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Questions to the Prime Minister

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during Prime Minister's Question Time, a number of lengthy questions were asked. I was going to raise the issue of the closure of St. Margaret's fire station by the over-extended Kent county council, but I was unable to do so. Mine was Question 4. Many of the questions asked by Opposition Members had clearly been written by those at Walworth road, and were far too long: they could not get the lines out in time. Could the possibility of a system involving shorter questions at Prime Minister's Question Time be investigated?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman must leave that in the hands of the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Civil Procedure Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The British legal system has a history of which we can and should be proud. British justice is renowned the world over. Fundamental to its success has been the ability of our legal system to adapt to changing requirements. It has evolved over many centuries, responding to new problems, new situations and new challenges. The civil justice reforms on which the Government are now embarking represent a further step in that evolutionary process. We are responding to the challenges thrown up by modern society; more than that, we are laying the foundations for the system of justice that will enable it to meet the challenges of the future.
In 1994, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Lord Woolf to conduct an inquiry into the rules and procedures of the civil courts. The Government recognised that fundamental changes were required to combat the persistent problems of procedural complexity, undue delays and high costs in our courts. In July last year, Lord Woolf presented his final report, offering a body of recommendations designed to meet the continual challenge of access to justice. Those recommendations form the basis of the Government's reform package.
The reforms of the civil justice system go hand in hand with our reforms of the legal aid system. These reforms will enable us to get better control over legal aid spending, and to target resources more effectively on those who need them most. With the reforms, we shall be able to make limited resources stretch further, and enable more people to get help with their legal problems.
The central messages underlying the reforms launched by the Bill are that civil litigation must become faster, cheaper and simpler. By "faster", we mean that it is our aim that, once cases enter the litigation process, they should proceed along managed tracks to specified deadlines that are adhered to by all parties. We also mean that procedures should be in place to ensure that the real issues of a case are brought out into the open from the outset. By "cheaper", we mean that the cost of litigation, both to individual litigants and to the public generally, must be reduced. It cannot be right that—as is true of too many cases in our system—the costs of taking or pursuing an action exceed the award made. Procedures must be proportionate to the claim.
By "simpler", we mean that litigants should be in a position to know in advance how much a court case is likely to cost and how long it is likely to take. That must be supported by effective sanctions to ensure that the timetables and cost limits are met in all but the most exceptional cases. The civil justice system and all those involved in it must respond to the needs of litigants, not the other way around.
The Bill represents the opening shot in our war against delay, excessive costs and bureaucracy in the civil justice system. It provides the framework to ensure that litigation is streamlined, efficient and properly focused on the needs of litigants.
The key to the reforms is the emphasis placed on the court's proper role in encouraging fair settlement, efficient case management of contested cases and a greater sense of proportion in the resources involved in the litigation process. Judicial case management will empower the courts to take greater responsibility for each case in the system. Courts will have more power to make decisions on how cases should proceed, to flush out the central issues at an early stage, to encourage settlement and to minimise costly and time-wasting delay. Case management will be supported by well-defined litigation "tracks" that will ensure that the appropriate level of court control is used to manage cases, and in the fast track by a new fixed-costs regime that will reward efficiency.
In addition, it is proposed that protocols will be developed to promote good practice among litigants and their advisers both before and during the litigation process. Coupled with the greater emphasis on alternative dispute resolution, it is intended to foster an atmosphere in which litigation is truly seen as the last resort.
To support these proposals, and to ensure that the civil justice system is truly accessible, it is our aim that procedures should be simple and easily comprehensible. The new procedures introduced under the reforms must be easily understood by all. Just as important, the new rules of court must facilitate such understanding. There has been a great measure of support for the simpler approach adopted in the new-look rules which accompanied Lord Woolf's final report. They have been drafted in clear English with a view to being comprehensible to a wider audience, not just to qualified lawyers.
The reforms represent a challenging task for the courts. The judiciary, and the court staff who support them, will have to learn new techniques; they will have to adopt a far more proactive approach, and take far more responsibility for ensuring that cases progress as quickly and as efficiently as possible. To support this new role, a comprehensive training programme for the judiciary is being embarked on. New computer systems are also being developed to ensure that technical support is available. We will ensure that the resources necessary to achieve those aims will be in place.
However, the reforms do not just represent a challenge to the judiciary or the courts. They demand at least as great a change in the current practices of the legal professions. If lawyers are to meet the demands of the courts, they must ensure that their practices are capable of delivering the goods. The reforms envisage efficient, proactive and flexible lawyers, making the most of modern technology. As Lord Woolf recognised, his recommendations require a change in culture among all the players in the system.
I am encouraged by the response of many lawyers, solicitors and barristers alike, to the challenges with which we have presented them. Many firms are now setting in place new systems to enable them to plan their cases effectively, to allow them to budget properly and to ensure that they are in full control of their case loads. The professions as a whole must follow suit if they are to ensure that they can meet the expectations of their clients in the new litigation landscape.
Lord Woolf was assisted by a group of dedicated assessors, by the participation of a wide variety of organisations in various working groups and by the


involvement of countless others in seminars, workshops and other discussions. I pay a warm tribute to all who have contributed. It is surely that inclusive approach that has secured such widespread support for the proposed reforms. The Government intend to proceed with the Bill's implementation in that vein.
The Lord Chancellor set out his plans for the implementation of the civil justice reforms in his strategy document "The Way Forward", which was published last October. It makes clear his commitment to the reforms and sets October 1998 as the target date for implementation of their central elements. The key changes that will be in place by October 1998 are the introduction of the fast track and the multi-track.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In the context of what he has been saying, will the Minister give an assurance that the Lord Chancellor's Department will ensure that the court staff who are needed to deal with the extra work that will go through county court offices will be employed, so that we will not face delays caused by staff shortages in those offices? They are very short-staffed in some regions.

Mr. Streeter: It is certainly our intention to resource the alterations to the system properly. We will ensure that people are adequately trained, that the most modern and appropriate technology is in place, and of course that the appropriate number of staff are available to ensure that this system, which is all about speed and minimising delay, works effectively and properly—so I think that was a yes.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I will refrain from making any political point about who will need to implement the Bill after the election, but the Minister is being somewhat disingenuous. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
The costs of establishing and maintaining the Civil Justice Council are expected to be about £250,000 per annum and will be met from within existing provision. The Bill is not expected to have any other significant financial implications.
That may be narrowly and technically true, but it is not true in the wider context of the report.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not true in the wider context of the report, which will of course take far greater resourcing to implement. Those resources are being and will be made available for training and information technology. The figure that the hon. Gentleman read out refers to the unified rule committee, which the Bill is all about, but I assure him that we will adequately resource this important and radical new system.
I mentioned earlier that the Bill paves the way for the reforms, rather than containing all those reforms. Given that, I shall set out briefly what it seeks to do.
The Bill's primary purpose is to provide for a unified set of rules of court. Those rules will govern the practice and procedure to be adopted in civil litigation in the High Court and the county courts—and, in relation to appeals, in the civil division of the Court of Appeal. Clause 1 therefore provides for the necessary rule-making powers. Those new rules, to be known as the civil procedure rules, will replace the existing supreme court rules and county court rules. The stated aim of the exercise of the rule-making powers is to secure that the civil justice system is accessible, fair and efficient.
The first draft of the new general rules was released with Lord Woolf's report and we have received more than 100 responses as part of the consultation procedure. Careful consideration will be given to all the responses received as the Lord Chancellor and the rule committee make progress towards finalising the draft rules.
Schedule 1 adds detail to the rule-making powers conferred by clause 1. It restates the present broad powers of the existing rule committees and expands them in some respects. It deals, for example, with the power to make rules regarding the delegated exercise of jurisdiction and with the powers regarding modifications of rules of evidence. It enables rules to be made for piloting new procedures.
Clause 2 sets out that the new rules are to be made by the civil procedure rule committee, whose membership is provided for. The balance of interests on the committee that is now provided for in the Bill represents a sensible compromise between allowing those with a stake in the system a voice on the committee and ensuring that the committee is of workmanlike size. Clause 2 also provides that the rule committee must consult before making rules, that it must meet when discussing rule changes and that it must make rules that are simple and simply expressed.
Clause 3 sets out that civil procedure rules are to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The House will wish to know that, during the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government gave an undertaking to provide for a debate in both Houses on the new unified code of rules, once they have been drafted, but before they are formally presented for approval, to enable Parliament's views to be reflected in the final rules.
Clause 4(1) enables the Lord Chancellor to make consequential amendments to other enactments where that is necessary or desirable in consequence of the rules made. That power is to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 4(2) will ensure that, before any rule is made that would override an existing enactment, that enactment must be amended, repealed or revoked by an order, and that the order will attract the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 5 provides that county court practice directions should be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, or someone authorised to act on his behalf. It is intended that the Vice-Chancellor would fulfil that function. The clause also sets out that practice directions can be made concerning the transfer of proceedings and that practice directions may be made for specific courts or specific types of proceedings.
The Civil Justice Council is established by clause 6. The Government have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed following Lord Woolf's recommendations on the establishment of such a council. We accept that it can assist the success of the civil justice reforms and provide useful advice relevant to keeping the system under review.
Clause 7 arises from the decision following a recommendation made by the Judges Council that the Anton Piller jurisdiction should be put on a statutory footing. Until now, Anton Piller orders have been developed by the courts under their inherent jurisdiction. They order a person to permit entry to premises for the purpose of finding or safeguarding evidence that is needed for civil proceedings. The clause does not intend to alter the basis for those orders, but will replace the inherent basis on which courts currently grant them.
Clause 8 provides the power for the Lord Chancellor to extend the circumstances in which the courts have power to order the disclosure of documents before legal proceedings. The clause is intended to give effect to Lord Woolf's recommendation that the power to order pre-action disclosure should be widened from the present power that pertains only to claims in respect of personal injuries and death.
I am sure that the House will agree that this is an important Bill, and that it provides a sound basis on which to take forward the fundamental reforms that were proposed by the noble Lord Woolf. We do not intend the momentum for change to dissipate. The civil justice system's evolutionary process continues. The Bill lays the foundation for a civil justice system that is fit for the 21st century, that is quicker, cheaper and simpler and that improves access to justice for all. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Bill, though rightly described as modest in size, is great in its significance and in its potential impact on our civil justice system and its procedures, but perhaps even more importantly, its culture. Looking around at the limited number of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Members present, I notice a great and almost overwhelming preponderance of those with a professional interest in the matter. It would be tempting to conclude from that that the matter is largely technical and that the Bill is of interest only to lawyers, but when one considers the Woolf report, which led to the Bill, and when one examines the Bill, its significance is revealed as being altogether wider.
The Bill is about justice that is delivered in an assessable way, is affordable, and is delivered in plain simple language and in procedures which reflect that. Importantly, it is also about putting into place pathways which present an opportunity for alternative dispute resolution, so in terms of its impact it is much more than simply a matter of interest to lawyers. It is of interest to all people who have a dispute and a grievance that should be settled—all those who are all too often deterred by expense and delay from pursuing legitimate causes.
We must approach the Bill in the spirit of seeking to find a way that will deliver access to a civil justice system that our citizens, who look to the House for a lead and for their interests to be represented, can afford. It ill behoves the Government to describe the measure as their first shot—the words used by the Minister—in a war to promote affordable and more easily accessible civil justice whose procedures are less obscure than at present. That first shot has been fired within weeks of the end of the Government and after years of neglect of a system that has become increasingly expensive and riven with delay.
Court staff are increasingly stretched, morale is low and they are hard pressed to deliver justice. The Government have fired their first shot within days of an increase in fees that has effectively priced justice beyond the reach of many of our citizens. The Bill cannot be divorced from that background. In the debate and in Committee we shall pursue the Government because of their failure to underpin the Bill with practical measures that will deliver justice.
The Government have gone against both the spirit and the letter of Lord Woolf's report because they have failed to address the issue of cost. Despite all advice and warnings to the contrary, they have engaged in an insistent drive to make the courts self-financing. The Bill will not pave the way for the reforms that we all seek in civil justice because the court fees system prices justice beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen.
Lord Woolf said in his report, which was published in July, that as part of the review of court fees the position of a litigant of modest means should be protected from the undue impact of increased court fees. Lord Woolf's work forms the basis for the Bill, but without consulting or giving the House the opportunity to debate the measures the Government laid statutory instruments to increase court fees. That is totally unacceptable, and we have prayed against that increase so that we can have the opportunity to debate it.
Without a broader debate, discussions on the Bill are virtually meaningless—and that has an impact on our capacity to deliver justice to our people. In the absence of a broader debate, it is futile to look to the Bill to improve access to the courts for those who have causes to pursue. The increases in court fees will cost the legal aid fund about £14 million a year, which will have to be met by the taxpayer. That money would otherwise be available to increase the access of our citizens to the legal aid system. In just one year in the Government's life, 12 million people were rendered ineligible for legal aid.
I will give some examples of the increases in court fees. A petition for divorce will cost £150—up from £80. Until October 1995, the fee was £40. A debtor's petition for bankruptcy has gone up from £25 to £50; until October 1995 the fee was £20. There are new county court fees. An application by those with judgment debts seeking to set aside court orders of varied payment terms will now cost £10. Applications by tenants and borrowers seeking to suspend warrants for possession of their homes—a vital matter that is of interest not only to lawyers—will now cost £10. That is to try to stop the bailiffs coming in and taking possession of a home. The Minister raises his eyebrows. He is clearly indifferent to those who have lost their homes as a result of the Government's negligent failure properly to manage the economy.

Mr. Streeter: rose—

Ms Joan Walley: rose—

Mr. Boateng: The Minister has had his turn. I give way to my hon. Friend

Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply that people have to pay £10 to attempt to get justice through a county court, but that they may have to apply five or six times at £10 each time? That is what concerns people who are being denied justice. The Minister laughed when my hon. Friend referred to that.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. That is why not only the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Advice Services Alliance, but the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the National Consumer Council are speaking with one voice against the Government's proposals.

Mr. Streeter: I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. To reverse the court fee increases would cost


taxpayers £50 million. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, would they reverse those increases at a cost of £50 million? If he is not saying that, his criticisms lack credibility. This is where realpolitik comes into play.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister knows that the Opposition have been absolutely clear. We have prayed against the increases in court fees and we and others have called for a cost-benefit analysis of the increases, because we are not satisfied that the increases are in the best interests of the court service and of our citizens. There is no question of maybe—I will make the position clear: we have no intention of reversing the increases, because that would pile injury on injury. Having expended the money to bring about the change, required court staff to make adjustments and budgeted for the process, there is no point in causing even greater loss to the Treasury.
Opposition Members are concerned that in future no court fees increases should be imposed which cannot be justified by a cost-benefit analysis. We say that the current increases are not based on a cost-benefit analysis, but are the result of Conservative Members' dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to the law and to justice, because they regard the court service and justice as a business. Opposition Members do not regard them as a business, but as a public service. That is the difference between Conservative and Opposition Members.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the answer to the very good question of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that a Labour Government would be opposed to increases in court fees but would not do anything about them once they had been imposed? That seems to be what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is saying. The House, the profession and the clients are entitled to an answer, yes or no, from the Labour party.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for one moment and listen, I think that he will agree that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North is entitled to a yes or no answer from her Front-Bench spokesman to a very important question.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), of whom I am very fond, and who speaks for the Liberal party, really must drag himself above the level of "Focus", his local free handout.

Mr. Carlile: Yes or no? I want an answer to the question.

Mr. Boateng: No, we know that every remark uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a party spokesman, has a party political purpose—of course it does.

Mr. Carlile: Yes or no?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman should not pretend for one moment that his concern in asking that question is anything other than pressing his own party advantage.

Mr. Carlile: Yes or no?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. and learned Member for

Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the rule against seated interventions, however provocative he may feel the position to be.

Mr. Boateng: The answer—which I give without any provocation or prompting—is that we do not intend to reverse the increases, even though we are opposed to them. We do not believe in the philosophy that underpins them, and we do not intend to carry on with that philosophy. However, the increases have been made and the budget has been set; it would therefore be quite irresponsible to reverse them, and we do not intend to do so.
We do intend, however—this is another difference between Conservative and Opposition Members on this issue, as on so many others—to ensure that we do not introduce proposals, whether for increases in court fees or for any other proposed reform, that have not been properly costed and subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Streeter: We have done that.

Mr. Boateng: If the Minister has done that, why has he failed, time after time, to tell us how much the Bill will cost, or how much it will cost to implement the Woolf proposals? We have given him that opportunity before, and I will give him the opportunity now. I will happily sit down and allow the Minister to tell us how much the Bill will cost.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the main cost features of the Bill are for training and the implementation of the appropriate computer systems. Next year's training budget is about £3 million, and the budget for computer technology for the county courts alone is £5.5 million. All that training and technology will be geared to making a success of the Woolf reforms.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister has not told us where the money will come from.

Mr. Streeter: It is in the budget.

Mr. Boateng: If it is in the budget, what will be cut to pay for it? When the Lord Chancellor was asked that question, the Government displayed a remarkable reticence about where the money would be found. The Minister's own strategy document tells us that there will be transitional costs in implementing the reforms. Is he saying that the only transitional costs will be those that he has identified today? Is that what he is saying? There is suddenly an unexplained reticence on that point.

Mr. Streeter: I shall be replying to the debate, and I shall of course deal with the issue of resourcing.

Mr. Boateng: We may take it, therefore, that inquiries will by then have been made and that an answer will be given. Or perhaps there will be no answer: if there were an answer, we would have heard it

Mr. Streeter: Get on with it.

Mr. Boateng: We have no intention of getting on with it.

Mr. Streeter: That is obvious.

Mr. Boateng: I make it clear that we have no intention of getting on with the Bill or with the proposals without


knowing how much they will cost. We shall subject all the reforms to the most rigorous cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with them. It is absolutely clear that the Minister and the Government have not done so. They did not conduct such a process on court fees and they have not done so on Lord Woolf's proposals. They have introduced a Bill in a cost-benefit analysis vacuum—on a wish and a prayer—and they cannot say where the money will come from to pay for it.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Reducing tax allowances.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) mutters from a sedentary position about reducing tax allowances, so there it is: there have been 22 tax increases since the most recent general election, and the increase in court fees is just another tax. The next time my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor produces a briefing on Tory tax rises, we shall have to include increased court fees as a tax rise, because that is precisely what they are—a tax on the poor and the under-privileged when they seek justice.
We have come to expect Conservative Members to impose taxes on people who go on holiday and those who want to do business. Now there is a tax on people who go to court to seek justice. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for introducing a Bill in that context.
How do the Government propose that the Bill should be implemented, and what training and information technology will be provided to ensure that it is successful? The Government have signally failed to realise the likely fundamental impact of these radical—a word that the Minister used, albeit in a rather tentative manner—proposals? He described them as radical, and they will indeed make a real difference to the way in which the civil justice system operates.
Have the Government considered establishing pilot projects to test implementation of the Bill's provisions? We welcome the fact that in another place the Bill was improved in one important respect, with the inclusion of what is now clause 6, which establishes the Civil Justice Council. That proposal was one of many which emanated from Lord Irvine of Lairg, the shadow Lord Chancellor.
The advantage of the Civil Justice Council is that, as an advisory body with functions related to promoting the aims of the civil justice system, it will be in a unique position to comment on any pilot schemes established to ensure that the Bill is effected in such a way as to achieve the objectives hoped for it. The need for such pilot projects is vividly illustrated by the impact that the Bill will have on fast-track procedures in relation to personal injuries. At this point, it would be right for us to outline some of our concerns about at least one of the recommendations made by Lord Woolf in his important, landmark report.
When it comes to personal injuries and claims designed to achieve a remedy for those who have suffered such injuries, Lord Woolf's report is perhaps lacking in the sense that he was precluded from addressing substantive issues of law reform. To that extent, therefore, an important opportunity for radical and positive reforms to personal injury law—linking the reform of the substantive law to reform of procedure—has been lost.
There is a real danger that the recommendation on the introduction of fast-track litigation in cases worth less than £10,000 will in fact lead to injustice for victims of personal injuries. There is a danger that there will be a shift of the cost burden away from those most able to bear it—those backed, very often, by the considerable resources of an insurance company—on to those least able to bear it, such as the worker injured in the course of his employment or the person who sustains an injury on the sidewalk as a result of local authority negligence; we all see such cases at our constituency surgeries. In other words, the cost burden could be shifted on to the small person who comes to court with a relatively modest injury in terms of the quantum of damages to be awarded, but who finds himself at a disadvantage as a result of being placed on the fast track, with all its limitations. We seek some assurances from the Government in that regard.
We are also eager to ensure a valuable consumer input into the functions and work of the civil procedure rule committee and the Civil Justice Council. It would be wrong if the rules to be made up and developed by the committee—rules that will govern the practice and procedure of the civil courts—were to be brought into effect without the affirmation of at least one lay or consumer representative on that committee. Such representation accords very much with the spirit and the letter of the Woolf proposals, which were concerned always to make sure that the law in this respect did not develop outside the world occupied by lay people, where the consumer interest rather than the interests of lawyers ought to be to the fore. We therefore seek some assurances from the Government on this point and some proof that the concerns expressed by consumer organisations, among others, have been met.
Finally—[Interruption.] I hear muttering and moaning from Conservative Members; they will soon be learning that one of the prerogatives of opposition is the capacity to go on and on in the public interest. I look at one or two Conservative Members who may be back after the general election and say, "You'll learn the rights of opposition soon enough and find in me and my colleagues"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me. I have noticed that the capacity to go on and on is not confined to one side of the House.

Mr. Boateng: I am suitably chastised, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me point out to Conservative Members—including a new and only too happy arrival, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)—that we are concerned about the introduction of statutory instruments. It is only right that those instruments should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and not only in the early stages of the implementation of the proposals. The House is made up largely of lay people and should be able to bring to the consideration of matters of civil justice the common sense and practical grounding that ought to be their basis.
With those caveats, and having set out our concerns about the Government's failure to subject their proposals to a proper cost-benefit analysis, we welcome the Bill and will give it a fair—indeed, effusive—wind.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I begin by declaring an interest as a practitioner in this area of the law. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent,


South (Mr. Boateng) on speaking for about 35 minutes on this uncontroversial Bill. It was, as always, a pleasure to listen to him. It was rather like watching one of those fellows at the funfair making candyfloss. I draw his attention to paragraph 39.5, subparagraph (2), on page 206 of the draft civil proceedings rules. He may find it instructive.
I was once told by a Government Whip that there was nothing worse than a Member of Parliament talking at length in Government time about a subject that he claimed to know something about. Lest my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who sits in silence on the Front Bench, should at some stage return to his previous existence—he once instructed me, and would be discouraged from doing so again—I shall confine my remarks to a few moments.
I broadly welcome the Bill. I have never understood why we needed a green book and a white book. I hope that the amalgamated rules will prove useful.

Mr. Boateng: A pale green book.

Mr. Garnier: Whether it will be a pale green book, a zebra book or any other colour of book does not really matter. The main thing is that the rules will be simple and simply expressed, which is welcome. I am also pleased to hear that we shall have a debate in due course on the rules. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, South will entertain us on that occasion as well.
I pick up on one reasonably good point that the hon. Member for Brent, South made about costs. I gently remind the Government that we should think carefully about the legal aid reforms referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister, and the increase in court charges, in the interests of public access to justice. I do not want to bring up the old cliché about the doors of the Ritz, but it is at the back of all our minds.
I should like to mention two or three issues in the Bill. The first relates to Anton Piller orders. I am glad that clause 7 will bring them under a statutory basis. May I, perhaps wickedly, ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the desire to provide judicial authority for entry into private premises in civil litigation will inform our debates on the Police Bill?
Secondly, what extensions to the provisions on pre-action disclosure are envisaged under clause 8? As a libel practitioner, I am concerned that we should not allow—or at least we should be wary of allowing—irresponsible defendants to get pre-action discovery of documents to fish for a defence, having made an unsubstantiated allegation. I am reasonably sure that the Lord Chancellor does not have in mind allowing irresponsible defendants to go on fishing expeditions, but help on that would be gratefully received.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I thought that I was beginning to interest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 says:
Civil Procedure Rules may provide for the exercise of the jurisdiction of any court within the scope of the rules by officers or other staff of the court.
I know the definition of officers, who are judges, but not of the "other staff". Will my hon. Friend write to me, if he does not have time to deal with it this evening, to tell me who those other staff are?
Those are my remarks for this evening. I trust that you have found them fascinating, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Donald Anderson: That was indeed the fast track. The Bill and the "Access to Justice" report on which it is based represent the fruitful coming together of two men. The Lord Chancellor had the foresight to see the need for reform, the flexibility to change his position on the Civil Justice Council, following his reluctance about it on Second Reading, and, perhaps most importantly, the wisdom to pick the right man for the job—Lord Woolf.
Lord Woolf is a man of enormous diligence, towering intellect, vast legal experience and diplomatic skills. It is clear from the report that he consulted widely. The annexe shows those whom he consulted over two years, which included several overseas visits. He showed a commendable willingness to learn from foreign experience.
Similar reforms have been adopted in response to similar problems in some of our Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as several states in the United States. However, he did not go as far as the German system, under which fixed-price contracts are negotiated in advance between lawyer and client. That might be the most effective deterrent to time-wasting. It might have been instructive to look more closely at that aspect of the German system.
I first came across Lord Woolf when I was parliamentary private secretary to the then Attorney-General, the late Sam Silkin, who had an enormous regard for him, and who set him on the path to his well-deserved accelerated promotion. He is also the author of a very civilised report on prisons, which is light years from the attitude of the present Home Office team.
At one level, the Bill is a technical enabling Bill, giving a statutory framework to the recommendations in the report. The 370-page report is put into 11 clauses and two rather brief schedules. Perhaps the report is not very revolutionary, although Lord Woolf pointed out on Second Reading in the other place that the concept of a unified rule committee for the High Court and for county courts was first recommended by the judicature commission of 1872. The wheels grind rather slowly. The change is certainly welcome, and the merger should ensure consistency of practice at all levels of our court system.
The debate in the other place showed a substantial consensus, which has been largely reflected today. Given the importance of the subject and the fact that a number of other key issues depend on the passage of the Bill, I hope that the usual channels will ensure that it passes through all its stages before the election, whenever that may be.
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in expressing sadness that the Bill, which purports to reduce the cost of justice, almost coincides with the County Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1996, which introduces such dramatic increases in fees. Everyone who has practised knows about long delays, often caused by having to wait until the relevant case papers reach the top of the solicitor's in tray. All such delays are for tactical reasons, of course.
I remember calculated delays in one case going on for so long without rebuke from the judge, who took a passive view, that, although the proportion of interest in the sizeable property in question had been determined, the value of that property doubled. Those delays were clearly wholly tactical, and were against the interests of the public and the legal aid fund.
By setting a timetable, we are seeking to put an end to delays, which, alas, arise mostly for the wrong reasons, although I concede that in many cases the delays from experts, for example, are outside the solicitor's control. However, although we hope to overcome delays, there are dangers in switching to judicial case management with the judges in the driving seat throughout. The new-style judges could possibly become over-zealous in their work, and therefore work to the disadvantage of justice.
I am not sure how that greater zeal can best be guarded against, but, if the new culture—the buzz phrase in the report—is to succeed, there must be a spirit of co-operation between the Bench and the Bar to ensure that there is a willingness to be flexible, to understand and to enter into proper and informed negotiations, instead of any dictatorship. That depends not only on the personality of the judges, especially district judges, whose role will be much enhanced, but on adequate training.
The purely adversarial system must be modified, and wherever possible, alternative disputes procedures encouraged. I recall that I once marshalled for the late Judge Leslie, who said something to the effect that the worst agreement is better than the worst imposed judgment. The willingness to find alternative disputes procedures and to avoid rancour and adversarial excesses should be sought through genuine discussion on timetabling and modifications, if necessary, in the light of difficulties that unexpectedly arise, and implemented with the co-operation of lawyers and the public.
Success obviously depends on training, especially in information technology, which in turn depends fundamentally on resources. I return to the point, which was made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, that resources must be made available and in time. The explanatory and financial memorandum mentions the very tip of the iceberg of resources.

Mr. Streeter: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning in response to his intervention that the £250,000, to which he is referring again, was for the rule committee. That sum is in fact for the Civil Justice Council.

Mr. Anderson: I noticed the inadvertent mistake, but thought it prudent not to intervene at that point.
There are no costings in the Woolf report. All of us recognise that, come what may, no crock of gold will appear after the election. This important reform will have to take its place alongside all other pressures. Although it will involve short-term expenditure, it is clear that, in the medium and longer term, there should be substantial savings to the public purse.
I could detain the House on a number of points of detail, such as consumer representation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South referred; the difficulties that might arise in the fast-track procedure; the

implications for the legal aid fund; and the affirmative or negative procedure for statutory instruments. I am, however, personally satisfied with the fact that the Government have said that there will be a debate in the House on the rules, and not persuaded that one would need to have other than the negative procedure thereafter for the generality of modifications.
The debate is important; its subject is likely to affect very many of our citizens. It is sad that there are not many more Members present, which is perhaps a reflection of the fact that it has become more and more difficult for lawyers to find their way, or to want to find their way, into the House. When I first entered the House, rather too long ago, very many heavy civil practitioners would have spoken in such a debate.
To a large extent, therefore, we must rely on the wisdom and expertise of those in the other place. It is significant that both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls contributed to the debate in the other place, while, save for those in the field of defamation law, it is difficult in this House to find any hon. Member who has a heavy civil practice. That is bad for the public, and bad for Parliament. Lord Woolf and the team of assessors around him deserve the thanks of the public and Parliament.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is difficult to find in the House any members of the Bar who have any practice at all, such are the pressures of modern legislation.
I hope that I can take it from what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that we should not expect an ambush in the Lobby. Oh dear, I notice that the ogre at the feast, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is walking into the Chamber, assessing the possibilities of an ambush. I can inform him that many of my hon. Friends are even now populating the Tea Room and various other Rooms, and are ready to run back into the Chamber to vote.
I commend the hon. Member for Swansea, East for not indulging in the windbaggery in which his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) indulged. We are getting used to being told that the Labour party will make things clear, but it never does. Labour Members huff and puff like the hon. Member for Brent, South, who raised his voice in anger at the court fees provisions, which are, of course, not directly relevant to the Bill. When he was asked the simple question, "Will Labour pay the money?" we did not get the answer.
I should like Labour's Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Garscadden, to know just what a valiant effort his hon. Friend made to protect the Labour party's integrity—notwithstanding a tartan tax, a council tax, a young children's tax and a windfall tax, all of which could pay the £50 million for the court fees—because otherwise the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would have had his guts for garters, as of course would the Opposition Chief Whip. I am afraid we must sidestep such issues in order to take this important piece of legislation seriously.
I congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on realising that, in this modern world of extensive rights and the extending perception and demanding of rights, we simply must have a civil justice


system that allows ordinary people of modest means access to justice as cheaply as possible. I commend the team for getting to grips with the problem in the way that it has.
What makes an elderly system expensive and prohibitive is its complexities and old-fashioned practices and attitudes. Once the problem was identified, it was obvious that Lord Woolf had the precise capabilities for sorting it out. The Woolf report has achieved just that, with the help of most able assessors.
Everyone concerned with the exercise, from my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and Lord Woolf downwards, must be congratulated on not only making comprehensive recommendations but getting them so nearly right that there is hardly any legitimate complaint from any direction. I hope that that is not because the area from which complaints and criticism is most likely to come is not convinced that the Woolf proposals will ever, effectively, see the light of day. That is a possible but—I hope—unlikely explanation for the silence of the genuine non-windbagging critics.
This Bill, as a first step, starts the process of improving access to justice according to Woolf. We have the amalgamation of court procedures and how to access them in one book. We have extended case management, which includes identifying and better defining the issues earlier; identifying the right court earlier; penalising time wasting; easing some of the unsatisfactory rules of evidence; and encouraging alternative methods of resolving disputes, so that litigation may become the last resort and not the first. All that is to be implemented by the end of 1998.
The Bill got off to a good start in the other place. It was improved there, especially by the inclusion of the Civil Justice Council, which the Lord Chancellor accepted. The Bill answers the headlines such as the one that appeared in The Independent on 4 December 1996:
Foxing Woolf … Efforts to put radical civil justice reforms into practice are being hampered by a lack of co-ordination".
Such criticism has no foundation now that the changes in the other place have been accepted.
The Bill and the Woolf proposals are not the end of the matter, as is obvious from our debate. For the proposals to work, judges, counsel and solicitors will have to be trained and retrained at some cost. Judges will have to make more time to read cases, which happens in the criminal courts—where I work occasionally—only with much difficulty.
One of the main avenues of justice is legal aid. Unless we improve the legal aid rules and make it more widely and more fairly available, the system will not much improve, however impressive Lord Woolf's contribution to improving access to justice. Improvements in the system and in legal aid are the twin pillars of improved access to justice. However, those and other effects of Woolf will almost certainly mean more money, and no one and no party is keen on that. That fact may prevent us from getting too euphoric about Woolf, and therefore about the Bill.
For example, information technology always sounds as if it will reduce costs, but I am not sure it always does. I worked on a fraud trial with the help of computers and it was great fun, but I am sure that old-style booklets with coloured pie charts would have been cheaper, better and probably quicker.
One element that shines out from Lord Woolf's report, and its implementation in the Bill, is the degree of consultation and co-operation that has been not only permitted but encouraged between the many interested parties, including the Bar, solicitors, the Bench, consumers, operators, the Government and civil servants—the list at the back of Lord Woolf's report is endless.
A lengthy consultation does not, of course, always mean a good outcome, but absence of consultation usually leads to a bad outcome. The speed with which we introduce some criminal legislation sometimes leads to unnecessary aggravation and doubtful results, as the Government are currently experiencing with the Police Bill and the Crime (Sentences) Bill. I am sure that the two main problem areas in those Bills could have been solved with more consultation and agreement among all concerned before they were launched. The present example of consultation and co-operation in civil legislation may in time spread to criminal legislation.
When the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the subject of legal aid—principally criminal legal aid—two or three years ago, we were struck by the comparative lack of co-operation between the Law Society and the Bar Council. One of our recommendations was that they should get their acts together. No such criticism is possible of the Bill, and I hope that co-operation and the opportunity for reflection will be the norm in the future.
One legal wit recently remarked that the appointment of Lord Woolf as Master of the Rolls, Sir Richard Scott as Vice-Chancellor and Lord Bingham as Lord Chief Justice showed that any Tom, Dick and Harry could rise to the top of the legal profession. All those eminent and distinguished gentleman have, together with Jim, risen to the challenge of the reform of civil procedure, and we should wish that their labours bear profound and abundant fruit.

6 54 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile: This is an important Bill that should, and is likely to, change the operation of civil litigation for the better. I am sure that all hon. Members have experience of constituents who have relatively small claims and who are afraid of going to law. They expect their Member of Parliament to wave a magic wand that would avoid the need to go to law. Often, we cannot do so. We have to tell them that their only recourse is to go to court and the best we can do is to recommend a competent solicitor. There are one or two such in the House today and I can see at least two on the Conservative Benches.
We steer our constituents in the right direction, but often they do not go to the solicitor because they remain afraid of litigation. They have two main fears. The first is the formality that they believe they will face in the courts because the rules were designed by lawyers for lawyers, not for the public. The second is, of course, the cost of going to court. Barristers, such as myself, who have conducted civil litigation find no pleasure in telling clients who are brought to see us that the cost of litigation for a relatively small claim simply is not worth the candle. We have to tell them that any claim for a few thousand pounds is not worth pursuing because of the risk that they might have to pay costs. That is not acceptable. If somebody has a claim for £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000, surely the civil


justice system should enable them to claim that money and recover it without the risk of more than that sum being swallowed up in costs. I have often given that advice to a client who has said, "But Mr. Carlile, it is a matter of principle." The only advice one can give is that litigation is not a matter of principle but a matter of business.
Small claims have become a very risky business. We must also bear in mind the fact that legal aid is not limitless, and nobody can pretend that it is. It could be better targeted in some areas and there is always room for improvement in a complex system. Reforming the civil procedure rules could help us to target legal aid on those cases where legal aid is really needed.
I applaud the efforts of Lord Woolf. He has already rightly been described as a remarkable judge. He is clear-thinking and he has produced excellent reports. He has also been flexible—he has listened to the representations made to him and made many changes to his preliminary ideas. He has responded to the concerns of consumer groups, of the profession and, of course, of the Government. I believe that he has produced a blueprint for a civilised civil justice system, which was certainly improved in the other place. I join the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in commending the other place for introducing the Civil Justice Council, and the Government for accepting that important amendment.
When Lord Woolf was kind enough to ask for my views on certain aspects of his proposals. I suggested that he was slightly too tentative on the wise use of legal aid, and that the small claims procedure could be used for a more extensive range of cases. My experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of the small claims procedure is that, on the whole, district judges run it well.
The new breed of district judge, like the new breed of circuit judge sitting in the county court, is fully capable of sensitive judicial case management. As long as constituents present their cases in a measured, balanced and rational way and write down the basis of their claim, they tend to come back satisfied with the way in which the district judge has tried the case, sometimes even when they have lost or failed to recover the full amount of their claim.
I do not accept for one moment that there are special complexities in personal injuries actions. I have conducted many such actions over the years, for both plaintiffs and defendants, for trade unions on legal aid and for private clients who simply come through the doors via solicitors, and it has long been my view that the small claims procedure and the limit for those claims could be extended and that district judges could easily save the legal aid fund a great deal of wasted money by dealing with claims of a higher value. If that were done, legal aid could be much more specifically targeted where it is deserved.
I do not believe that plaintiffs making relatively small personal injuries claims would be substantially disadvantaged if they had the assistance of a better-trained court staff and the judicial case management that a district judge—usually a solicitor with long experience of preparing cases—is able to offer.
I applaud the introduction of an extended provision for pre-action discovery, which will be extremely useful, especially in cases of alleged breach of contract or in the

many Welsh boundary disputes that those of us who practise in the Principality have experienced. Often, in pleading a claim over a boundary or right of way dispute, a huge amount of money is wasted in seeking to discover the contents of abstracts of title held in dusty boxes in solicitors' offices. It would be so much simpler if one could go for pre-action discovery before deciding whether to pursue the claim, and a great deal of money could be saved.
There is no doubt whatever that there is much dissatisfaction among staff in county court offices throughout the country. They work extremely hard, often under great pressure, and try to manage offices and courts, often without replacements for those who leave. If the Woolf reforms are to work, whichever Government implements them will have to ensure that staffing levels are brought to a proper establishment.
We must remember that, under the Woolf system, court staff will have to give an awful lot more advice to people handling their own actions, who will perhaps have been given guidance, but not detailed legal advice, by consumer advice centres—citizens advice bureaux and the like. There must be enough staff to deal courteously and quickly with members of the public, and to do that successfully the staff will have to be trained.
At the moment, it is extremely rare—it sometimes happens in country towns—for the court staff to be willing to take the time to advise in person a litigant making a small claim to put into that claim phrases such as "breach of contract", "interest", "damages", "pain, suffering and loss of amenity" and all the other phrases that trip off lawyers' tongues with such ease. Court staff will have to be properly trained to give such basic advice without compromising the essential impartiality of a court officer.
It is extremely important, as we go down this exciting road in developing the civil courts, that we should not close county courts, so that the system becomes more user-friendly but the user cannot get to the system because it is too remote. In mid-Wales, where I live and have practised for many years, and which I will represent until the general election, and in north Wales and all rural areas, the provision of reasonably accessible county courts is important; it is worth paying for, because it gives the fundamental access to justice that people require.
In early discussions of the Woolf proposals, there was a fear that there would be far fewer centres dealing with civil proceedings. That proved to be unfounded, after Lord Woolf listened carefully to representations. I hope that the Minister will express a commitment to retaining as many county courts as possible, so that people living in the remoter areas of England and Wales will be able to have access to those courts and to use their facilities.
I deplore the level of the fees increases, which will make some litigation extremely difficult to afford. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was absolutely right to raise the matter earlier. I also deplore the way in which her question was responded to by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
The hon. Gentleman has a burgeoning career in the media: we see him as a pundit, a television judge and a presenter of great skill, but he will never find a place on the radio programme "Just a Minute". With a great deal of repetition, deviation and hesitation, he told us that although he, too, deplores the swingeing increases in court


fees introduced by the Government, if he is in government in a few weeks' time he will not do anything about it. I find that a bit of a puzzle. I suppose that I must learn more about new Labour to understand how we can achieve a better standard of living without spending any more money. Perhaps the magic will be revealed to us at some time in the future, but it does not sound logical to me—a mere humble journeyman lawyer.
I hope that whatever Government is in office after the general election will be prepared to review court fees. If those fees serve to discourage members of the public from using the civil litigation system in their proper interests, I hope that the Government will be prepared to reconsider them and, above all, will try to ensure that the Woolf reforms themselves are kept under review, so that we do not have to go for 50, 75 or 100 years before reforming another collapsed and creaking system.

Ms Joan Walley: Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken this evening, I do not have a professional interest in the subject. I must take issue with my very good—and hon.—Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and say that, as well as being discussed by those with a professional interest, the issue of access to the criminal justice system for everyone should be considered by other hon. Members, because access to social justice is extremely important. That is the impression that I get from the many constituents who attend my surgeries.
I sometimes think that, if I had been a lawyer, I would be a millionaire, because of the fees that I would have received for all the letters that I have written. I see some hon. Members shaking their heads, but I wonder.
The Law Society is not an organisation that I have had a lot of time for, because of what has happened in Stoke-on-Trent and the problems with mine shafts. There has been much talk of consultation and new partnerships. I wish that those partnerships had been extended to prevent some of those problems. Along with other hon. Members representing North Staffordshire, however, I have been approached by lawyers who operate there and I value my close working relationship with them.
Broadly speaking, the legislation is a preliminary and necessary step to implementing Lord Woolf's proposal by consolidating the complex rules for both high and county court civil actions. I cannot help thinking, however, that—as is typical with the Government—the Woolf proposals are being viewed in isolation. That theme has emerged in this debate. The Government are dealing with the recommendations in isolation, separate from the equally important area of legal aid reform. Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) I hope that we can consider that matter in detail.
After the general election, it will be up to a Labour Government to look more fully into how we implement Lord Woolf's proposals, with an overall review of the justice system. We should consider not only legal aid but the provision of legal services.
The main problem with the Bill is the inadequate funding of the reforms. I heard what the Minister said and his reply about costings and additional costs, but we have not had an assurance that there will be adequate funding of the various measures in the Bill. I am also concerned that most of the legal profession, especially the high street

firms, will be inadequately prepared to meet the new demands, regardless of what has been said about training. I urge the Minister to consider those issues carefully.
Another fear is that the Government seem to be using the Woolf proposals as an excuse to consumerise, which might lead to further privatisation of justice. We have to be careful not to go down the road of business interests above public service. That is a crucial issue and we need to keep a close watch over it.
What it comes down to is, have we got a guarantee that all citizens have access to the law? Judging by their letters, many of my constituents for one reason or another—largely cost—do not feel that they have access to the law. In 1979, under a Labour Government, 74 per cent. of households qualified for legal aid. After 18 years of Tory misrule, only 48 per cent. do so. In effect, that amounts to a denial of people's rights.
Access to the law is becoming a luxury, as I see in my daily contacts with constituents—for example, those who have worked all their lives in the potteries and have repetitive strain injury or some other injury. They do not have access to the law, because they cannot afford it. I urge the Government to deal with those issues. With the withdrawal of legal aid, people either have no recourse to the law or are thrown on to the contingency fee scheme, on a no-win, no-fee basis and are, again, at the mercy of lawyers. To me, that is not equal access to social justice.
Most important, I wanted to make a short contribution to the debate because, in addition to the withdrawal of legal aid the Government have increased the cost of using the courts. I have been lobbied extensively, not least by the Stoke-on-Trent citizens advice bureau, which, with its expertise, brought it home to me what a difference the increased costs will make to people in Stoke-on-Trent. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), it is not merely a question of the £10 increase for access to one county court. People could find that, for various reasons, they needed to raise about eight different aspects and could thus end up with a bill for £80 or £100. That is outside the budget of many of my constituents, who cannot afford to pay and so do not have access to the county courts.
I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South to pray against the proposals to increase costs. It is not a question of what happens after the increases have been implemented. We all understand the situation. The important thing is to stop such increases getting on to the statute book in the first place. If we are really concerned about access to the social justice system for all, that is where the emphasis must lie.
It concerns me that the Bill has been proposed in isolation from the other main legal issues that must be tackled. It is typical of the Government that we have had to wait so long—18 years—for some progress, but that it is not all-embracing progress giving everyone access to the law. I want civil justice to be discussed and reformed as a whole and I shall be looking to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South to ensure that he and my hon. Friends do just that in the months ahead.

Mr. Boateng: We have had a good debate, and it is right that we should have ended on the note provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who reminded us—on the basis of


representations that she had received from solicitors and people giving advice and assistance throughout north Staffordshire—of the impact of our deliberations on civil justice on ordinary people and of their concerns.
Opening the debate, the Minister told us that he believed that it was right that the reforms of civil justice and of legal aid should go hand in hand. Those were his words and he said that that was the Government's intention. The Opposition's response is, "If only that were true." Let me share one example of where it is patently not.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who speaks from the Liberal Benches, reminded us of the role of the county court and of county court and district court judges and their staffs in the delivery of legal services. They will undoubtedly have an even more important role to play after enactment of the Bill in the light of Lord Woolf's report, as he envisaged that they would provide information and help litigants to progress their case.
What court staff? How are they to be trained? I ask, "What court staff?" in the context of the redundancies that have already been announced in the light of the introduction of information technology. It has been made clear that staff will have to go as information technology is introduced.
Information technology is to be introduced on the basis that Lord Woolf has recommended it and that it is cost effective and makes sense. How can it make sense to lay off staff as information technology is introduced when it is envisaged that county court staff will have to play a greater role than ever in that they will be holding out an offer of a service of providing
information and help to litigants
whom they are currently not in a position to help? Indeed, county court staff are currently officially prevented from giving advice and assistance to litigants. Even though many of them wish to do so, their job specifications and the rules under which they operate preclude it.
Where are the staff to come from? Never mind how they are to be trained and how their training is to be paid for, where are the staff to come from if they have been laid off, and how much will it cost to keep them in place? That is not a transitional cost. The Minister has not even mentioned staff costs.
The matter goes beyond that, to the important role—the key role—of district judges. We are told that the Government's reforms of legal aid and of civil justice go hand in hand, but they do not. They do not for one clear reason. I shall give a practical example. We know that there is a pilot project for a legal services committee in the north-west. We know that the committee does valuable work, ensuring that the interests of the whole community are represented and that the resources of personnel within the community are marshalled in the interest of the development of legal services. The consumer is there; the producer is there; the local authority is there; and, most important, the district judge is there, representing the branch of the judiciary that is closest to the people, and deals with the small claims court and with the litigant in person.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has announced that district judges are not to serve on the soon-to-be-appointed legal services committees. Why? Lord Woolf clearly

envisages a greater role for district judges in case management and in the delivery of legal services, yet the very branch of the judiciary which is best placed to deliver that service, that has an overview of the service, that reflects the ethos that the Bill seeks to encapsulate—the culture of common sense, practicality, speed and plain language—and which is most closely aligned to all those characteristics is precluded from serving on the legal services committees. It makes no sense, and gives the lie to the Government's suggestion that the two reforms are going hand in hand.
I ask the Minister to respond to that and to show that the Government will make no final decision on the role to be played by district judges on the soon-to-be-appointed legal services committees. That is essential if we are to see the Bill as the grounding for changes that are to come.
It does not end there, because the Minister has to answer the question about resources that was raised by several Opposition Members. It is not enough for him to seek to limit the cost as he has. He is being disingenuous, even if we are talking only of the training in case management that is required. Lord Justice Henry, the chairman of the Judicial Studies Board, said that there would need to be
a substantial increase in the Board's Annual Budget",
which is now £3.2 million. How much is that substantial increase to be? Have the Government budgeted for it in the existing budget of the Lord Chancellor's Department? We want to know.
Lord Woolf himself recognises the importance of case management—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) shaking his watch arm. The advice that his silent, sedentary friend is giving is absolutely right, because Lord Woolf makes the point that we have to have
realistic provision made for reading time for judges".
How much reading time, and at what cost? The hon. Member for Worcester is quite right to wave his watch. We want to know how much that time will cost, and if the hon. Gentleman chooses to give a graphic demonstration—albeit limited to his own wrist—of the significance of time, so be it. We need to know, and the Minister must take time to tell us and those who look to this House. Members of the profession, consumer organisations and the public are concerned about the Government's seriousness about the reforms. We ought to know how much they will cost.
With all those issues as yet unresolved, the Minister cannot expect us to take seriously his protestations that he and the Government have been candid about their disclosure of the costs of the report. They are not being candid. They are not being candid about the costs, and they show no sign of any real willingness to publish those costs. Until they do, the suspicion among the public will be that the Government intend to embark on a process in which they wish the end without willing the means. That simply is not good enough.
That is why we have made it clear that, immediately after the next general election, when the people have given their verdict, we will undertake a wide-ranging reform of both the civil justice system and civil legal aid. It will be a combined reform that will subject the Woolf report and the Bill to the rigorous cost-benefit analysis that is needed. Without such an analysis, there is no way


forward for the Bill. There is no way forward for the necessary changes in culture—the emphasis on speed and efficiency, the practical, cheaper and simpler resolution of disputes, and the availability of early resolution to disputes that we all seek.

Mr. Streeter: This has been an important debate on an important Bill, and every hon. Member who has spoken has made a valuable contribution. I should like to deal quickly with some of the important points that were raised.
I can assure the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) that we will be the Government who introduce these reforms over the next few years. That is why we are taking great care to get them right and to resource them properly.
On the increase in fees, which was raised by several Opposition Members, I wish to make four concise points First, people on legal aid will continue to have their court fees paid for by the Legal Aid Board. Secondly, those on income support will of course have the benefit of a minimal fee. Thirdly, as we all know—there are quite a few practising barristers in the Chamber tonight—court fees are a tiny fraction of lawyers' hourly rates.
Fourthly, unless the Labour party can commit itself to reversing the increase in civil court fees in the unlikely event of its forming a Government, it must accept that it is open to the charge of hypocrisy and a total lack of credibility. Reversing these increases—which have already been introduced, with effect from 15 January—will cost the taxpayer £50 million. Unless the hon. Member for Brent, South can say that Labour, in the unlikely event of its forming the next Government, would reverse that increase, he had better keep his counsel on that subject.
I can reassure the House that there will be sufficient resourcing for these important reforms. The current budget for computers in the county court service is in the region of £4 million. The budget for 1997–98 is about £5.5 million. We shall ensure that the best possible use is made of modern technology.
The current training budget for the Judicial Studies Board is £2.6 million. It is planned to increase to £3 million in 1997–98. In addition, conference facilities costing more than £500,000 are in the process of being refurbished to enable much more streamlined, up-to-date training to take place. Those are the major costs of the reforms, and they have been specifically provided for.
There will be sufficient staffing, and staff will be adequately trained. The budget will be adequate for that, and no doubt we can return to these matters in Committee. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, it is expected that there will be significant medium and long-term savings as the reforms are implemented over the years.
We are actively considering piloting. The rules will enable us to take the power to do that. As a Government, we believe in piloting, which we are using in the case of many of our legal aid reforms.
Personal injury law was mentioned. Lord Woolf is considering that issue, which was also raised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
Of course we will take the view of the consumer into account. Provision has been made on both the rule committee and the Civil Justice Council for the voice of the consumer to be heard.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made an important speech. I thank him for his welcome for the reforms and for his helpful comments. True to his personal style, he made a very analytical assessment of the Bill and raised several detailed and important points. I hope that it will be in order if I write to give him the answers to those important points. He may be fortunate enough to serve on the Committee that will scrutinise the Bill and to make some of these points again.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East, who rightly paid a warm tribute to Lord Woolf and agreed that it was important that the Bill was passed in this Parliament. He also made an important mention of alternative dispute resolution. I thoroughly agree that the importance of ADR has yet to be fully recognised. I thank him for his warm support for our reforms.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made a helpful and important speech. He exposed Labour's new idea of a windbag tax, which could raise an awful lot of money from one or two Opposition Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his warm support for these justified reforms.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke in support of the reforms, drawing on his many years of experience at the Bar. He accurately described people's concerns about going to law and the costs risk to litigate small amounts. I am grateful for his kind comments about Lord Woolf. He expressed his anxiety about the number of Welsh boundary disputes, and I can confirm that the English rugby team will cross the Welsh line often at Cardiff Arms park in a few weeks' time He recognised the important role played by county courts, especially in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made an important contribution. She is right to say that this issue is not only for lawyers, but for everyone, because it concerns justice; but she is not right to say that we have reviewed these reforms in isolation. We regard them as part of a twin-track approach with our legal aid reforms. Lord Woolf paid tribute to the way in which we have taken both sets of reforms forward together.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North fell into the trap of claiming that there was not enough money, that the increase in court fees was wrong and that our reforms on legal aid were penny-pinching. Unless the Labour party can say that it would put more money in—in the unlikely event of winning the next general election—it has no credibility in raising such points.
Finally, the hon. Member for Brent, South raised new points in his extended winding-up speech. I will respond to him on the subject of district judges in due course. He is right that reading time has been made available for judges in our reforms. We have 18 months to get the detail right. Our commitment is to do so.
The Bill wages war on delay, excessive cost and bureaucracy. It will make access to justice quicker, simpler and cheaper. It will take the British justice system into the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Procedure Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for reimbursing expenses of members of the Civil Justice Council or the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE

That the draft Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Prosthetists and Orthotists Board) Order of Council 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1997, dated 6th January 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Registered Social Landlords) (No. 2) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 51), dated 14th January 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Mining Subsidence (North Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment an issue which is causing anxiety and detriment to constituents of mine in the Selby district of North Yorkshire. The issue relates to the costs and possibilities of insurance cover for houses and householders whose property is affected by coal mining subsidence. The Selby district is particularly susceptible to the difficulties that I shall outline, because our local complex of mine workings is one of the largest and most modern in Britain, if not in Europe, extracting vast quantities of coal day and night under a huge local coalfield area, extending to scores of square miles.
More widely, coal mining subsidence, for all the recent diversification of our energy base, continues to be a huge and costly problem. At the end of October 1994, a Department of Trade and Industry press notice stated that British coal had settled 7,594 claims for subsidence that year, about one third of them in Yorkshire, at a cost of nearly £40 million.
That press notice, incidentally, was issued in the context of the introduction and appointment by the Government of an independent subsidence adviser, specifically to help protect the rights of those affected by coal mining subsidence. That initiative was as desirable as it was commendable, and the office of the subsidence adviser is now firmly established in Nottingham.
It is against that background that I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to a problem which the subsidence adviser has precisely pinpointed. Following a trawl which his office has made of several insurance companies, he wrote on 15 March 1995 to a firm of surveyors in Yorkshire who have been professionally retained by some of my constituents:
The insurance companies themselves have confirmed that they are more than willing to effect new insurance cover to properties in known coal mining areas provided that the property in question has no history of subsidence damage. None of the companies I have spoken to will effect new cover on a property with a history of subsidence damage, whatever the cause of the subsidence.
The refusal of new cover that the subsidence adviser pinpointed is the experience of a number of my constituents in the Selby district and more widely in North Yorkshire, who have approached many insurance companies about household insurance cover. The refusal of new cover is the tip of an iceberg of financial and other detriment, which goes far wider than the narrow problems of structural damage or defects that the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 was designed to tackle.
I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, in an area of active coal mining such as the Selby coalfield, a period of suspended animation, so to speak, may apply between a phase of underground working, resulting in structural damage to property, and the Coal Authority's willingness to repair that property. Sometimes the repair work must wait for up to three years—even longer, in some cases—to make sure that the subsidence has settled and is complete, and thus to avoid abortive reinstatement.
That is the background against which some of the worst problems arise for those seeking insurance cover. The three essential problems that they face relate, first, to the fact that they cannot take advantage of the many offers of cheaper insurance. That applies especially to householders whose insurance was, until recently, controlled by mortgage companies.
Secondly, there are the problems of those who are trying to buy or sell property in coal-mining areas, arising, for example, from demands by insurance companies for full and costly structural surveys before cover is offered. Thirdly, where insurance cover is to be continued in a sale, there are instances of very large premium increases, which can often abort a sale.
Let me tell my hon. Friend the result of trawls by constituents of mine, and others in Yorkshire, in their efforts to shop around for insurance cover. Churchill Insurance, Zurich Municipal, Ecclesiastical Insurance, Cornhill Direct, Prudential, General Accident. Avon Insurance, Norwich Union and Commercial Union have all stated in one way or another, categorically or more cautiously, that they would not be able to offer new insurance cover in the typical circumstances likely to arise in the Yorkshire mining area.
General Accident, for example, wrote:
However, if a property has suffered from subsidence damage for which repairs either have, or have not been carried out, proposers are advised to remain with their existing insurers.… If the subsidence problem is on-going it is less likely that we will be able to accommodate the business
Prudential wrote:
Any building which is to be insured by Prudential must be in a good state of repair before it can be accepted. We would not be prepared to accept a building damaged by coal mining subsidence that had not been repaired as the property would be susceptible to damage from other causes.
Britannic Assurance wrote:
We would not be willing to accept as new business a property which is currently showing signs of structural problems or is adjoining a property that has recently suffered such damage.
When, in late 1995, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the problem, he actively entered the lists to see whether something could be done to improve matters. He constructively called a ministerial meeting with the relevant officers of the Association of British Insurers—ABI—and after that meeting, early in 1996, he wrote to me expressing the view that the essential difficulty was
the information gap which can sometimes exist between insurance companies' head offices and local branches; and between insurance companies and brokers. Some brokers and local branches appear not to be sufficiently aware of the distinction between coal mining subsidence, where there is a statutory compensation scheme, and other types of subsidence where there is not.
Turning to the situation of your constituent, I would suggest that she tries to contact insurance companies' head offices rather than brokers. Should she experience difficulties with the first contact point in any particular company or companies, she should, as suggested previously, enlist the help of the ABI in getting her through to more senior staff.
My constituents followed the advice given by my hon. Friend, but I am sorry to say that it has not helped. Approaches to head offices proved as abortive as approaches to local agents. Indeed, one of my constituents had a letter from a senior officer of the

ABI, who recommended that she approach a body which had links with the ABI and had been designated as a troubleshooter in the present context.
The body concerned had a most promising title: it was called the Subsidence Claims Advisory Bureau, and it referred in its prospectus to an insurance scheme known as Coal Sure Household Insurance, with a mouth-watering subtitle that read:
At last a chance to obtain full Building Insurance cover on property that has previously suffered from mining subsidence.
My constituents thought, on receiving that advice from the ABI, which directed them to that specialist advisory bureau, that they had at last run their quarry to earth, as it were. They immediately got in touch with the firm of brokers, Messrs. G. W. Bishop Ltd., of Ashford, Kent, which was associated with the Coal Sure scheme. One can imagine their surprise and dismay, however, when they received a letter from Bishop Ltd. stating, in respect of properties that have suffered coal-mining subsidence:
Cover for properties which have suffered from this type of damage is very difficult to obtain. In our experience, no company will offer subsidence cover for a property which has previously suffered any kind of movement.
Those exchanges clearly showed, and currently show, that departmental optimism in the Department of Trade and Industry, and sanguine and soothing advice from the ABI, have all foundered on the hard rock of resistance by the great mass of insurance companies to take on new household insurance business in active coal-mining areas.
Such immovable resistance led me to write to the subsidence adviser, Mr. Webb, at the end of last summer. I received from him a letter that included the following passage:
From the general response which I have received from the ABI, it is clear that the specific reply given by Churchill to (your constituent) is in accordance with the criteria which are being applied by the whole insurance industry. Those criteria are:—

1) Companies are not prepared to insure subsidence damaged properties as new business: and.
2) existing insurers will continue cover on subsidence damaged property, and this extends to new owners where the property changes hands, provided that cover has not been allowed to lapse."

The subsidence adviser rightly went on to describe the situation as "far from satisfactory."
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the situation is far from satisfactory. My constituents in North Yorkshire—and possibly others elsewhere—are suffering real detriment from the current state of affairs. One of my constituents, for example, who is paying an annual premium of £427 on her property in Selby to Royal Insurance, had an offer from General Accident for identical cover for £263. The offer from General Accident was withdrawn immediately, however, when my constituent disclosed that her house was in an active coal-mining area, and had suffered subsidence damage.
I think that my hon. Friend will be as surprised as I am by the negative approach that the insurance industry has adopted towards subsidence problems, precisely because the Government have an excellent record in underwriting damage with public funds. There is no rationale in the insurance industry jibbing at providing underwriting cover for properties in coal mining areas,


as the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 provides effective statutory cover for dealing with subsidence claims and disburses millions of pounds a year—as I have already said—to take the heat and burden of compensation on to the broad shoulders of public finance and away from private insurance. Why, then, this irrational discrimination?
I hope that my hon. Friend will seek further remedies. I hope that, as result of this short debate, he will hold further discussions with the Association of British Insurers with a view to ending the discrimination that I have specified. One way forward might be for the Minister to encourage the insurance industry deliberately to exclude coal mining subsidence damage from policies, on the grounds that publicly financed compensation is already available. Lower premiums and more active policy writing could then result.
If all else fails, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider paying compensation, as part of statutory subsidence compensation, to householders who can demonstrate that they are suffering financial detriment through not being able to secure new and cheaper insurance cover. I hope that he will consider offering financial help in cases where the insurance industry will consider offering a quotation for new insurance cover only if a very costly full household structural survey is provided. I need not remind my hon. Friend that such surveys can cost many hundreds of pounds.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity it provides to discuss the issue of insurance cover for properties in areas exposed to the risk of coal mining subsidence damage. As he said, it is an issue that potentially affects large numbers of homes in his constituency and elsewhere.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend has had previous correspondence and discussions on this matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy. I am therefore aware of the difficulties faced by some of his constituents while trying to obtain insurance cover for their homes. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the extensive safeguards provided by the statutory coal mining subsidence regime.
The relevant legislation is the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, as amended by the Coal Industry Act 1994. In essence, the Act requires coal mining companies in areas of current mining and the Coal Authority elsewhere to make good coal mining subsidence damage. Given that statutory regime, like my right hon. Friend I find it difficult to understand why insurers should be concerned about the possibility of receiving claims for coal mining subsidence damage when that damage would be made good by the coal mining company or the Coal Authority.
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to my hon. Friend's initiative in meeting the Association of British Insurers, when he put that proposition to them. It was clear that there was widespread—if not universal—recognition, at least in the association and at insurers' head office level, that the regime was in place and that the cost of coal mining subsidence damage repairs would not fall on the insurer.
Nevertheless, the association offered—I believe it was a helpful suggestion—to hold a seminar for its members with the Coal Authority and with RJB Mining to make clear the full extent of the coal mining subsidence damage regime and its implications for insurers. That seminar was held in October last year and was well attended. I am sure that the insurance industry, certainly at head office level, is now much more fully aware of how unlikely it is that it would be called upon to meet coal mining subsidence damage claims. That appears to be useful progress.
Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend recently received a letter from the Association of British Insurers. He will know from the letter that the association accepts that some insurers had been reluctant to quote for risks in coal mining areas because they failed to understand the responsibilities of the mining companies and the Coal Authority. My right hon. Friend will have noted that, in order to improve the situation, the association has requested the chief executives of member companies to
ensure consistent application of an informed underwriting policy of generally being prepared to insure such policies".
I turn now to the so-called "direct" insurance market. As my right hon. Friend is aware, those companies offer lower premiums. They are able to do that, essentially, by taking on only applications that give rise to no substantial underwriting complications, thereby enabling them to reduce their administration costs. Insurers are commercial undertakings. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will agree that, if some insurers decide that they shall seek to supply a particular segment of the market in that way, they are fully entitled to do so.
Much of the continuing confusion about the matter is due to a lack of understanding of company underwriting policy at branch level. While the head office of a particular company may be well informed of the risks and of how customers should be advised, staff at branch level often remain uninformed. A similar situation can arise with independent brokers, where companies have not kept them up to date with any changes to their underwriting policies.
The Association of British Insurers has been positive in contacting its members to ask that each company ensures that its underwriting practices are consistent across its regional offices. The association highlighted the need for companies to put in place procedures for referring customers from direct writing arms of their business to other parts of the company that can handle that specialised business.
I understand that steps are being taken to compile an information pack to ensure that all direct insurers give consistent advice about why they have to refuse some applicants, and that they pass applicants on to "non-direct" parts of the business, which will consider more complex applications. A pack is also being


considered that would explain to customers the limits of different types of insurance, and point them towards the kind that is most appropriate for them.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that some progress has been made by the Association of British Insurers and the insurance industry. However, it is quite clear that some work remains to be done. The association will be seeking information from its members on what action companies have taken, and it will report that progress to my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business. Industry and Energy.
I also give my right hon. Friend this assurance: when Hansard has completed its task, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will ensure that the director general of the Association of British Insurers receives the details of this debate, and he will ask the director general for his comments about the issues that have been raised. Naturally, my hon. Friend will then pass on those comments to my right hon. Friend

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock.